Sitting of 12 January 1988

Preamble
The House met at half past Two o'clock
PRAYERS
[MR. SPEAKER in the Chair]
PRIVATE BUSINESS
  CORN EXCHANGE BILL [Lords]
  Read a Second time, and committed.

  CONTINGENCIES FUND 1986–87
  Ordered,
  That there be laid before this House Accounts of the Contingencies Fund, 1986–87 showing the receipts and payments in connection with the Fund in the year ended 31st March 1987 and the distribution of the capital of the Fund at the commencement and close of the year; with the Report of the Comptroller and Auditor General thereon.—[Mr. Norman Lamont.]

Oral Answers to Questions
  SOCIAL SERVICES

    Torbay
    Mr. Steen: To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services if he will arrange to meet the chairman of Torbay health authority to discuss health services in Torbay.
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Security (Mrs. Edwina Currie): I am hoping to visit Devon later this year, but details have not yet been finalised.
    Mr. Steen: When my hon. Friend goes to Torbay, will she congratulate the chairman of Torbay health authority, which has one of the highest bed occupancies in the country? The average length of in-patient stay is one of the shortest, and the cost is among the lowest in Britain. Will my hon. Friend also explain to the chairman how he is supposed to manage to run the health authority when the increase in funding this year has been 6.8 per cent., whereas the national wage increase has already been agreed at 8.4 per cent.? The authority cannot make ends meet.
    Mrs. Currie: I understand that Torbay has one of the highest growth rates in allocation of money in the region. I note my hon. Friend's comments and will bear them in mind. However, I would say that the authority is showing other health authorities how to make ends meet. Results are what matter. I note with interest, for example, that the waiting time for hip joint replacement operations is 22 weeks in Torbay and six weeks in Newton Abbot.
    Mr. Marlow: On her way to Torbay, I wonder whether my hon. Friend will—
    Mr. Speaker: Order. I think not today.

    North West Regional Health Authority
    Mr. Litherland: To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services when he last met the chairman of the North West regional health authority; what matters were discussed; and if he will make a statement.
    The Minister for Health (Mr. Tony Newton): My right hon. Friend last met Sir John Page during a visit to the regional health authority headquarters in Manchester on 30 October 1987. He was told of the progress being made in improving patient services within the region.
    Mr. Litherland: Is the Minister aware that, if that visit had taken place just before Christmas, they could have discussed—or indeed witnessed—engineers coming in to cut off the oxygen supply to the incubators for premature babies at St. Mary's hospital ., and that, if it had taken place last week, they could have discussed with nurses why they were forced to strike? Do not those conditions show that the National Health Service is in the throes of a terminal disease for which the Government are not offering a remedy?
    Mr. Newton: I am even more aware that, had my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State visited Manchester in the week before Christmas, he would have been able to point to the substantial additional funds that I had just made available to the North West regional health authority.
    Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: Has my right hon. Friend seen the excellent report from Sir John Page, which landed on our desks today, in which he points out the many savings being made in the region—particularly in purchasing policy — the vast increase in building of which my hon. Friend saw an example a few months ago, and the vast increase in patient care? That does not mean that we do not want more in Lancaster, we do. Nevertheless, it is doing very nicely.
    Mr. Newton: I have not yet had the pleasure of seeing the report to which my hon. Friend referred, but I remember with pleasure my visit to her area to open some large new hospital facilities there.
    Mr. Orme: When the meeting took place, was the crisis in the Salford area health authority discussed? Was there a discussion of the four wards that will have to close? Was it mentioned that the health authority must find £2 million per year into the 1990s, and that the money that has been allocated on a one-yearly basis is entirely unsatisfactory? What is the Minister going to do about the crisis in the inner cities—not least in Salford?
    Mr. Newton: Among other things, we are seeking to improve the quality of primary care services in the inner cities, and that is an important part of the mix as a whole. With regard to my right hon. Friend's visit, of course the concerns that were expressed then were taken into account when we made substantial money available this year and an extra £700 million for the hospital and community health services, including those in the north-west, next year.

    Preventive Medicine
    Mr. Patnick: To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services what measures he intends to make health promotion and the prevention of ill health a central function of general medical practice.
    The Secretary of State for Social Services (Mr. John Moore): Our plans are set out in the recently published White Paper "Promoting Better Health". Major changes are to be made in the system of payment to doctors to encourage them to provide a range of health promotion and preventive activities; for example, the introduction of incentive payments for reaching target levels of population cover for vaccination, immunisation and cancer screening and new payments for arranging and providing regular health promotion sessions for patients. The family doctors' contract with the National Health Service will be amended to make health promotion and the prevention of disease a specific part of their terms of service.
    Mr. Patnick: I thank my right hon. Friend for his reply, but I am sure that people in Sheffield would appreciate more detail. Will he give more details?
    Mr. Moore: I appreciate my hon. Friend's comment. The first negotiating meeting with the General Medical Services Committee will take place this week on 14 January. We will discuss details with the profession. We hope to provide incentives for doctors to reach targets, as I have said, and we will pay a fee to encourage doctors to provide an initial clinical assessment for patients registering for the first time with an NHS doctor. We will also introduce sessional fees for doctors who run health promotion clinics. In addition, we will seek to negotiate the payment of the basic practice allowances depending on a doctor carrying out health promotion and prevention of ill-health activities.
    Rev. Martin Smyth: While I welcome the Minister's statement about screening, will he accept that restricting free eye-testing will hinder detection, as optometrists detect what ophthalmologists diagnose, and that it will cost the Health Service more in the long run to end the free eye test?
    Mr. Moore: I do not accept that any of our evidence suggests that in the long run charges deter people from seeking treatment. I hope the hon. Gentleman recognises what we are seeking to achieve in addition to the very substantial increases in moneys going into primary health care. That will enable us to increase resources, especially for inner city and rural areas.
    Mr. Michael McNair-Wilson: As regular check-ups are so much a part of private medicine, may I assume from the words "health promotion" that my right hon. Friend is now extending that service to the National Health Service so that the "fit person" medical will become part and parcel of the health of this country?
    Mr. Moore: My hon. Friend is right. We are trying to ensure that we are as concerned with the promotion of good health as with simply eradicating sickness. To that extent, my hon. Friend will watch with interest, as I will, our negotiations with the medical profession to see that contracts reflect that.
    Mr. Grocott: Is it not a fact that among the many causes of ill health have been the increases in unemployment, increases in homelessness and the abolition of nutritional standards for school meals? Is it not absolute hypocrisy for the Government to say that they are concerned about preventive medicine when they have allowed all those things to grow under their jurisdiction? Is it not the simple truth that the Government are making the country sick?
    Mr. Moore: Most rational people who try to approach the health of the nation with a sense of rationality and balance will understand the political hypocrisy behind that question. Happily, the reality is that, under most Governments since the second world war, our nation has over the past 40-plus years seen a pattern of health improvement. We are now trying to supplement that by adding to the promotion of good health and the prevention of ill-health.
    Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop: Did my right hon. Friend carry out, before issuing his White Paper on primary health care, as accurate as possible an assessment of the extra loading that will fall on family practitioner committees if they are to have to process the immense number of item-of-service claims? What financial provision will be made to enable them to fulfil their function?
    Mr. Moore: My hon. Friend has made an excellent point. Within the White Paper, which is aimed at promoting health, we are seeking to add to the responsibilities of the family practitioner committees. To that extent we are committed to giving, through negotiation, additional resources to those committees that will allow them to carry out increased duties.

    NHS Patients (Private Care)
    Mr. Fearn: To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services what is his policy towards contracting out the care of National Health Service patients to the private health sector on a commercial basis.
    Mrs. Currie: In 1986, private hospitals provided care for over 41,000 NHS cases. This demonstrates the value of partnership between the sectors, and we encourage such local arrangements.
    Mr. Fearn: Will the Minister confirm that the contracts for the sale of hospital land to American companies based in Britain are going ahead? Will those contracts contain a clause about contracting-out services?
    Mrs. Currie: I am in some difficulty as I am not sure to which particular contracts the hon. Gentleman refers, but if he tells me I shall give him more information on them.
    Mr. Page: Is my hon. Friend aware that, with the exception of Belgium, Britain has the lowest contribution from the private health sector as a percentage of gross national product of any other country? Will he and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State have words with our right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer to see what can be done to encourage the private sector to make a greater effort in the health services, thereby releasing funds for our National Health Service?
    Mrs. Currie: I am sure that my right hon. Friend will take note of the points that have been made. It is vital to harness all available resources for the provision of health care. Some hon. Members insist that health care must be entirely publicly funded. That is a dogmatic and narrow-minded approach to a most important problem.
    Mr. Robin Cook: Does the Minister recall that in November her department released £250,000 to the west midlands on the express condition that it should be spent on private operations? Is she aware that, on inquiry, the west midlands authority discovered that private hospitals

    131
    were charging £400 more for a hysterectomy and £700 more for a hip replacement than was being charged in its own hospitals? In the meantime, Wolverhampton has suspended all hip operations for the financial year. As it is clear from that experience that the NHS gives better value for money, why does the Minister leave its operating theatres empty while filling the pockets of commercial medicine?
    Mrs. Currie: I take exception to the hon. Gentleman's synthetic indignation. The west midlands experience shows that it is important, right from the start, properly to negotiate cost-effective terms with the private sector, or indeed with anybody else. Our view is that the only question that matters is whether it helps the patient, as we expect cost effectiveness in all services.

    Income-related Benefits
    Mr. Gerald Bowden: To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services what recognition the new system of income-related benefits will give to the needs of families on low incomes.
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Security (Mr. Michael Portillo): Lower-paid working families will receive more help through family credit, which we expect to be received by over twice the number presently receiving family income supplement, at an extra cost of around £200 million; and we shall be spending around £100 million extra on families in income support, which replaces supplementary benefit.
    Mr. Bowden: I am reassured by my hon. Friend's reply and I applaud the principle that the greatest help should be given to those in greatest need. Can he give actual figures of the families who will be receiving family credit in future, and can he say how those who are in need and are entitled to claim will be informed and encouraged to claim that entitlement?
    Mr. Portillo: The total number of families should be about 470,000 compared with 200.000 who are receiving FIS today. We will launch a promotional campaign, on which we are spending £3 million.
    Mr. Campbell-Savours: Would the £50 or £60 that a child has saved in a building society out of weekly pocket money be taken into account for the assessment of supplementary benefit for the parents?
    Mr. Portillo: The new rules refer to the resources of adults and exclude them from income support at £6,000, as opposed to £3,000 at present.
    Mr. Roger King: Does my hon. Friend agree that we will be spending more on low-income families as a result of our social security reviews than has been the case until recently, and more than we would be spending if benefits such as child benefit had been index related?
    Mr. Portillo: Yes. Even allowing for the changes in housing benefit, the extra money going to families is of the order of £200 million. That is nearly double the amo0unt that would be required to uprate child benefits.
    Mrs. Margaret Ewing: Is the Minister aware that, under proposed changes in legislation, an unemployed head of the household who decides to undertake full-time education to increase his employment opportunities will
    132
    lose out on benefits, including housing benefit, which will be counter-productive to any scheme to encourage people to undertake training?
    Mr. Portillo: The provision for education is a separate matter from income support, which is there for those who are available for work. The two are different maintenance systems.

    In-patients (Statistics)
    Mr. Carttiss: To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services how many in-patient cases were treated in East Anglia in 1986 and 1978.
    Mr. Newton: There were 195,628 in-patient cases treated in 1978 and 253,124 cases in 1986. This is an increase of 29–4 per cent. over the period.
    Mr. Carttiss: Will my right hon. Friend congratulate the RHA and the districts, in particular the Great Yarmouth and Waveney district, on achieving that impressive improvement? Will he confirm that the same success could be recorded for out-patients and day case treatment?
    Mr. Newton: Yes, indeed. The increase in out-patients was just under one quarter and in day cases no less than one half. That is a striking achievement and I am happy to pay tribute to the RHA and my hon. Friend's district health authority.
    Sir Anthony Grant: Is not the result in East Anglia even more commendable when one reflects that the figures on which its funding is based are some five years old, whereas Huntingdonshire and, to some extent, Cambridgeshire are the fastest growing areas in the country? If that rather ludicrous state of affairs is the case, are not some areas that are not so fast-growing doing very well indeed?
    Mr. Newton: My hon. Friend will be aware that the increase that I announced just before Christmas for next year for the East Anglian regional health authority is among the highest in the country and reflects the rise in population. We are always anxious to ensure that our method for distributing money reflects such factors in as up-to-date a way as possible.

    Thames Regional Health Authorities
    Mr. Simon Hughes: To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services what is the percentage change in expenditure on hospital and community health services in real terms, respectively, using the National Health Service pay and prices deflator, in the four Thames regional health authorities in total, between 1981–82 and the most recent year for which figures are available.
    Mr. Moore: Between 1981–82 and 1986–87 gross revenue expenditure in the four Thames regions rose by 29–4 per cent. Compared with the rise in general inflation, this represents a real terms increase of 1–2 per cent. National Health Service pay and price inflation was comparatively high across this period. Compared with that measure Thames regions' expenditure dropped by some 2.8 per cent., although this was more than offset by increased efficiency. Taking this into account, the purchasing power of the Thames regions rose in real terms by 2 per cent., and, most important, the numbers of cases treated in all specialties rose between 1982 and 1986 by 8.7 per cent. in Greater London.
    Mr. Hughes: I am grateful for those figures, but if we look at them carefully do they not confirm that the most crucial part of the answer is that, as we have suspected for a long time, over the last five years in the south-east of England and the Thames regions there has been a cut in real terms in expenditure in the Health Service? Will the Secretary of State confirm that the Health Service is in such difficulties in the south-east, putting aside efficiency improvements and the rest, because the double effect of RAWP on inner London and south-east of England health districts means that they have suffered most from cuts? The consequences that we now see, in bed closures and the like, are the result of those figures, which have hit this part of Britain worse than any other.
    Mr. Moore: First, let me remind the hon. Gentleman that, as I said, there has been a real terms increase. He will want to look at the figures with care, and I explained them with care. Secondly, he will not want to deny what his right hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Dr. Owen) did when he was involved in government, which was agreed by all parts of the House, when the RAWP process was introduced in 1977. Like the hon. Gentleman, I represent a London area constituency, so I am conscious of the Thames regions' position on RAWP. The reality for 10 years has been that, despite the increase to which I referred, and despite the happy increase in patient activity, London's population has fallen and its relative overprovision, as seen by the then Labour Government, has produced a pattern of acute bed reductions, which has continued ever since that period on roughly the same basis. But—this is the curcial point for hon. Members who represent London areas — in 1993, at the end of the strategic planning period, London will still have more beds per head of population than the national average.
    Miss Widdecombe: Will the Minister consider urging one of those Thames authorities, namely, South East Thames—in the interests of efficiency and of increasing its income, on which expenditure depends—urgently to start realising the income from the numerous empty properties throughout the region for which it has no further use?
    Mr. Moore: I bow to my hon. Friend's distinguished past and detailed knowledge of these matters. As she will know, in the new Health and Medicines Bill we are specifically encouraging the generation of income from health authorities' resources. I shall draw the attention of the region and the area to her remarks.
    Mr. Leighton: Is it the Government's policy to starve the National Health Service of resources to bring about a crisis so that they can introduce new proposals for other methods of funding and thus undermine the principles of the NHS?
    Mr. Moore: Such political partisan nonsense does the House and the country no service at all. The resources that have gone into the National Health Service over the past eight years have been immense. The essence of the question related to the nature of patients served.
    It is interesting to note that between 1974 and 1979 in the area in question—the Thames region—the increase in acute patients and in-patients treated was 4 per cent., whereas since 1979 acute patient activity has increased by 15 per cent. That is the measure of real care about which we are concerned.
    Mr. McCrindle: I have listened carefully to my right hon. Friend's remarks and, as he will recall, I have raised this matter with him in the past. However, is it not clear that if, as is alleged, 1,400 fewer beds are available in the Thames regions this year than were available last year, there is at least the implication of a threat of a reduction in patient care in constituencies in those areas? Does that not mean that we should at least speed up the review of RAWP, which, I remind my right hon. Friend, his predecessor promised in October 1986?
    Mr. Moore: Like me, my hon. Friend represents a Thames region health authority area. However, he will know from the facts that I have given him that the long-term pattern of acute bed decline since the introduction of RAWP in 1977 has proceeded apace since then without a reduction in patient activity—indeed, quite the reverse. The RAWP review is very near completion and, like my hon. Friend, I look forward to the advice that will be given in it.
    Mr. Cohen: The Minister claims that patients are in a happy position. If that is so, can he explain why Whipps Cross hospital in my constituency is now on red alert, which means that patients cannot get routine surgery? That is a scandal, and the state of red alert is likely to persist throughout the winter, which is certainly not a happy state of affairs for that hospital's patients.
    Mr. Moore: Unlike the hon. Gentleman, I was in this House in the winter of 1978–79 and I shall never forget what happened in London hospitals during that winter. Having said that, I again remind the hon. Gentleman that no one denies the constant and growing needs in the Health Service. The question is how we can fulfil those needs and create good patient care.
    Mr. Malins: Will my right hon. Friend consider the example of Mayday hospital in Croydon, which is in a Thames region? Whatever Opposition Members say, that hospital has had a magnificent record of treating patients over the years. It treated about 27,500 in-patients in 1986 and thousands more day patients. In short, every year more and more patients are treated in that hospital, which my right hon. Friend knows so well.
    Mr. Moore: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. He knows Mayday hospital in his constituency very well. As a good constituency Member of Parliament, he is well aware of the reality of increased patient activity, which is what all of us in the House should be concerned about.

    Day Nurseries
    Mr. Allen: To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services what assistance is given by his Department to local authorities for establishing day nurseries; and if he has any plans to increase it.
    Mrs. Currie: The answers are none and no, Sir. My right hon. Friend has no power to make specific grants to local authorities to provide day nurseries. Day nurseries are provided by local authorities in the light of their own priorities and resources and their views on the needs of local children.
    Mr. Allen: The Prime Minister has tried to make great public relations play of her concern about child abuse, but in my shire — Nottinghamshire — there are only about 550 day nursery places for an under-five population of

    135
    30,000 children. When will the Government start to put their money where the Prime Minister's mouth is and allow Nottinghamshire county council to give a day-care place to every child who needs it?
    Mrs. Currie: I can confirm that the number of day nursery places provided by Nottinghamshire county council in 1986 was 555. In fact, it was Nottinghamshire county council that cut the number of places from 585 in 1984. However, the total number of day nursery places provided in that county council area has risen from 1,013 to 1,057 because the local authority is now relying far more heavily on private nursery places. If we bear in mind that Nottinghamshire county council has spent more on day nurseries in real terms and that their day nurseries are cheaper on average, that means that Nottinghamshire thinks that the private sector provides value for money in child care. I commend that attitude to the House.
    Mr. Tom Clarke: Does the Minister recall that although the population of children under five between 1981 and 1985 increased by 141,000, only 500 extra places were made available? In view of the genuine concern about family poverty, which the hon. Lady should not dismiss, and the national debate reflecting people's concern about child welfare, is it not a matter of great urgency that local authorities—not just Nottinghamshire—are forced into making a choice between, for example, providing library facilities or day-care facilities? In view, also, of the great tragedies that have been discussed, especially in recent weeks, does the Minister accept that the Government have a responsibility, including a responsibility to improve vital resources?
    Mrs. Currie: We have some old-fashioned views on that on this side of the House. We think that it is the parents' responsibility to care for their children. However, we recognise that day nurseries can help children in certain circumstances. Since the Government have been in power the total net spending by local authorities on all services has increased by 18 per cent. in real terms and has increased nearly twice as fast, by 35 per cent., on personal social services. If local authorities choose to spend that money, not on day nurseries but on peace committees and gay rights committees, that is their business.
    Mr. Key: I should like to say how strongly I agree with my hon. Friend about the primary responsibility for young children being that of the parents. Therefore, may I ask my hon. Friend to continue to ensure that that kind of care facility is available only to those whose need is the greatest?
    Mrs. Currie: Yes, I have a lot of sympathy with that view. It is worth putting the number of day nursery places into context. There are about 30,000 local authority day nursery places, nearly the same number in private and voluntary day nurseries, and about 250,000 children currently attend nursery classes in local authority schools. There are also child minders and play groups. Therefore, we are talking about a great deal of child care, most of which is provided by the parents themselves.

    St. Paul's Eye Hospital
    Mr. Loyden: To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services if he will make a statement on the future of St. Paul's eye hospital, Liverpool.
    Mr. Newton: As part of its strategic objectives for improving the pattern of acute hospital services in Liverpool, the Liverpool health authority has drawn up plans to transfer to the Royal Liverpool hospital-Liverpool Royal infirmary site, ophthalmic services at present provided by St. Paul's eye hospital.
    Mr. Loyden: The population of Merseyside and, indeed, of the north-west region will regard the Minister's remarks this afternoon as an absolute disgrace in terms of patient care. The hospital has a national reputation and has served the region for many years. The Minister's remarks are indicative of the way in which the Government are treating the National Health Service. They give assurances about the service being safe in their hands, but the reality is that people are dying, hospitals and beds are closing and people are waiting for years for treatment. That is how the Government treat the Health Service that was built up by the Labour Government.
    Mr. Newton: The hon. Gentleman's original question was about St. Paul's eye hospital. That is an old building, built in 1912, with no scope for further development. It is in rather poor condition, and the health authority proposes to re-provide all the beds in more modern facilities.
    Mr. Nicholas Winterton: Representing, as I do, a constituency within Merseyside RHA, and bearing in mind the answer that my right hon. Friend gave to the original question, may I ask him whether it is correct that Liverpool has more hospital beds per head of the population than any other district in the Merseyside region?
    Mr. Newton: That seems possible. In common with other regions, one of the difficulties that Merseyside faces is that of ensuring a proper distribution of its services. That is something that we have tried to help it with through the so-called bridging fund.
    Mr. Skinner: If these buildings in Liverpool, such as St. Paul's eye hospital, have to be pulled down because they have been up for a long time, when will the Minister start on this place?

    NHS Recruitment
    Mr. Watts: To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services if he will propose measures to tackle recruitment problems in the National Health Service; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Moore: Since 1978, direct care staff in England have increased by 76,000. Nevertheless, the Health Service is not immune to the recruitment difficulties experienced by many large employers, particularly in London and the south-east, and faces the same declining pool of suitably qualified school leavers as they do. No single solution exists to this problem, but we have recently announced a range of initiatives designed to improve recruitment and retention, on accommodation, grading structure and training.
    Mr. Watts: Is my right hon. Friend aware that there are new facilities at Wexham Park hospital in my constituency that are not fully used because of difficulties in recruiting sufficient numbers of suitably qualified nurses, and that the high cost of housing in east Berkshire is one of the principal reasons for those recruitment difficulties? Will he

    137
    consider moving away from national rates of pay to allow the payment of premium rates in areas of high housing costs to help overcome some of these recruiting difficulties?
    Mr. Moore: I know of my hon. Friend's connection with Wexham Park hospital, and that a modest improvement in recruiting is taking place there. He will be pleased to know that, already, several Whitley council management sides are seeking to negotiate, with our support, pay and grading structures that will enable the NHS to use staff more flexibly and take account of factors such as skill shortages and the pay rates needed to recruit and train staff in local labour markets. I know that my hon. Friend and the staff will welcome that.
    Mr. Galbraith: Does the Secretary of State agree that the greatest barrier to recruitment in the National Health Service today is the low morale of its staff, and that that low morale is based on their belief that the Government are not committed to the Health Service? What does the right hon. Gentleman propose to do to improve the morale of staff in the service?
    Mr. Moore: Like the hon. Gentleman, who served the National Health Service well for many years, I gather—[Interruption.] I fully accept that he did. Like him, I recognise the problem of morale. However, I genuinely ask him and hon. Members on both sides of the House whether the morale of the service, which has existed for 40 years, and into which vast amounts of money have been placed, and continue to be placed, will be improved by the quality of debate that we have been having in the last few minutes. I doubt it.
    I shall seek to do what I said I would do earlier—to encourage health authorities to improve recruitment by, for example, increasing male recruitment and by making greater efforts to attract and recruit mature entrants. Many of the things that health authorities are now doing, as well as the large resources that are being put into the NHS, will make people realise the Government's commitment to it.
    Mr. Hanley: Does my right hon. Friend intend to tackle the two great problems that exist in the north-west Thames area in particular, as well as in the south-west Thames area, of a declining percentage of those leaving school choosing to go into the nursing profession and the fact that, at the same time, there are declining school rolls?
    Mr. Moore: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The change in demography is one of the fundamental problems that we face. We are considering very carefully the UKCC project 2000 proposals, which is looking at ways of widening the entry gate for nurses as well as encouraging qualified staff to return to nursing. Obviously, at this time, it is important that we do all that we can to encourage that.
    Mr. Robin Cook: Will the Secretary of State express a view on whether the new subsistence payments will increase or reduce his recruitment problems? Is he aware, with the blood transfusion service, that that new arrangement will result in a cut of more than £10 a week for staff who are paid less than £100 a week? If that is so, is the right hon. Gentleman really surprised that the result of that arrangement has been to provoke outrage among those penalised? Will he reconsider this arrangement, which is patently unjust and is hitting hardest those who are lowest paid?
    Mr. Moore: I am delighted that the hon. Gentleman has raised that point. The changes in entitlement to day subsistence, over which there has been some industrial action, formed part of an agreement that was entered into freely by the staff side. Nevertheless, the management side has today made it clear that it is willing to discuss the issue further if the staff side so wish. I imagine that that is exactly what the hon. Gentleman is saying. Therefore, I hope that the staff will accept that offer and, as the management has requested, take all possible action to prevent further industrial action in the meantime.
    Mr. Sims: My right hon. Friend will be aware that a high proportion of qualified and trained nurses leave after a period of service to marry and raise a family. Is he satisfied that the NHS, in the same way as the private sector, offers re-employment conditions that are sufficiently flexible to attract nurses back after they have raised a family?
    Mr. Moore: My hon. Friend is on to a very important point—the key issue of trying to attract trained nurses who wish to come back into the NHS. My hon. Friend will know—as hon. Members on both sides should know—that 7,100 such nurses did come back to the NHS in 1986–87. Clearly, I am not satisfied that we have sufficient incentives and sufficient flexibility within the management structure to ensure that a larger number of that pool of trained nurses is attracted back into the Health Service.

    Benefits (Disabled Claimants)
    Mr. Wareing: To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services what further protection he proposes for disabled claimants who will have a reduced entitlement in April.
    The Minister for Social Security and the Disabled (Mr. Nicholas Scott): Existing claimants will generally have transitional protection and thus no reduced entitlement next April. We are addressing the problem of a very small number of severely disabled people, capable of independent living, who claim after next April. We will be considering a long-term solution once we have the report of Sir Roy Griffiths on his overview of care in the community and the results of the OPCS survey on disability. In the meantime, I am considering how best to find an interim solution with the help of the voluntary sector.
    Mr. Wareing: Does the Minister realise that this prevarication on the part of the Government is causing tremendous anxiety among severely disabled people, who stand to lose £50 or even more come next April? That anxiety is manifest in a mass petition that those people are getting up to present to Parliament. How much longer are the severely disabled to be sacrificed on the altar of uncaring Thatcherism?
    Mr. Scott: In the first place, no one is being sacrificed. We have until next April to produce this scheme and there is no prevarication. I am determined that a proper scheme will be produced and I believe that it is more important to get it right than to meet some artificial deadline.
    Mr. Holt: Would my hon. Friend care to look at the length of time that elapses between claimants first putting in a claim and the result of that claim, perhaps after one or two appeals? At the moment the way in which the

    139
    system works militates against the severely disabled, and it would be in everyone's interest if someone got his finger out.
    Mr. Scott: I am as anxious as anyone, and certainly as anxious as my hon. Friend, to make sure that the procedures are dealt with speedily and completed. I believe that it is more important that we should get the answer right than meet artificial deadlines.
    Mr. Wigley: Does the Minister accept that this problem has existed for months and that if he is to introduce an interim solution surely he should be in a position to do so by now? Therefore, can the Minister give a categorical assurance that the interim solution will be in place and effective by 1 April?
    Mr. Scott: It is certainly my clear intention that that should be so. If, by any chance, it were not in effect by 1 April, I would consider the matter carefully to ensure that any subsequent claims were back-dated to 1 April, but I intend to meet the needs of this small group of people in a flexible way by 1 April.
    Mrs. Beckett: Does the Minister not realise that, since the problem was identified in 1985, a whole variety of solutions have been put forward and that every time they have fallen because of the Government's unwillingness to put in further resources? How do they square that with the claim that these so-called reforms will target help on those in greatest need, when the biggest single losers will be the most severely disabled?
    Mr. Scott: The hon. Lady should give us credit for the extra resources going in next April to cope with the problems of the disabled as a whole. Over £60 million extra is going in to cope with the needs of the disabled. Give us credit for that. There is a small group of people who, because of the complexities of the existing system, will not be dealt with in the same way from April. I am determined to find a solution to that and I hope that I shall have the hon. Lady's support.

  PRIME MINISTER

    Engagements
    Mr. Yeo: To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 12 January.
    The Prime Minister (Mrs. Margaret Thatcher): This morning I had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in the House, I shall be having further meetings later today.
    Mr. Yeo: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the continuing strength of British industry not only reflects the success of her Government's economic policies but generates the resources that enable tax to be cut at the same time as spending on public services is being increased?
    The Prime Minister: Yes. The Government's policies of sound finance and incentives for enterprise have led to seven years of successive growth and, now, falling unemployment. The prospects for the coming year, with the continuation of the same policies, are good.
    Mr. Kinnock: When consultants in every area of medicine report that they are failing to meet urgent patient need, and when parents in so many cases are desperate
    140
    because of the delays in urgent treatment needed by their children, will the Prime Minister tell us whether she thinks that the crisis of underfunding in the National Health Service is now over?
    The Prime Minister: As the right hon. Gentleman is aware, an extra £100 million was announced just before Christmas, which brings the extra spending this year up to about £870 million, and there will be further extra spending on the Health Service next year. The Health Service on the whole has had greatly expanding resources. Indeed, it has expanded by 30 per cent. over and above inflation during the lifetime of the Government.
    Mr. Kinnock: Life or death operations are being postponed, staff levels are dangerously low in many areas, and beds and theatres are being closed. What is the matter with this woman—[Interruption.]—that she does not make the response that is necessary for the parents, children and patients of this country? Can the Prime Minister not see, or will she not see, that her figures are absolutely useless to parents who are distracted by worry at having to wait for urgent treatment for their children? I ask her now whether she will commit the resources necessary to clear the deficit this year to prevent a crisis next year. Does she not care that people have to wait in pain without hope and without help?
    The Prime Minister: The Health Service is expanding with extra resources, over 30 per cent. over and above inflation. The medical staff is expanding in numbers. The number of patients treated is expanding. The number of treatments is expanding. Operations are taking place that would have been impossible in the past few years. The right hon. Gentleman is referring to problems in the west midlands. He will have seen that a special statement was put out this afternoon by the chairman of the area health authority. May I also remind the right hon. Gentleman that the resources provided in his constituency area have greatly increased during the lifetime of the Conservative Government.
    Sir Bernard Braine: Has my right hon. Friend's attention been drawn to the appalling revelation in the press that certain doctors have been taking bribes from Asian women in order to carry out tests to establish the sex of the child, and, if it is a girl, arranging an abortion? While this is undoubtedly illegal, does my right hon. Friend agree that revolting practices of this kind, which are close to abortion on demand, should be denounced?
    The Prime Minister: As my right hon. Friend is aware, the Abortion Act does not permit abortions on the ground of the sex of the foetus alone. Any evidence provided to my right hon. Friend should go to the Secretary of State for Social Services. It will be examined and acted upon, because allegations of this kind are and must be taken very seriously indeed.
    Mrs. Mahon: To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 12 January.
    The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Lady to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
    Mrs. Mahon: How does the Prime Minister explain the fact that, according to official statistics for 1986, this country, alone of all European countries, has seen an increase in infant deaths?
    The Prime Minister: That is correct, up to the first year. There has been an enormous increase in the number of babies saved immediately at birth and during the first month after birth. We do not know the reason for that particular figure. It may well be that it is a statistical error. If the hon. Lady will look at the report of the Health Service, she will find a fantastic number of improvements in the Health Service that have taken place over this period.
    Mr. Baldry: To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 12 January.
    The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Baldry: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that all the signs are that in 1987 Britain was top of the growth league among major economies and that a recent poll showed that 97 per cent. of leading industrialists believe that the Government's policies will lead to continuing economic improvement? If we continue to grasp the excalibur of enterprise, can we not continue to be one of the most successful economies in the world, with all the attendant political influence that that gives to the country?
    The Prime Minister: I agree with my hon. Friend that our policies have gained the confidence not only of domestic investors but of overseas investors, who are anxious to come to the country. The growth, and the way in which we have tackled our problems, have meant that we have had far more influence abroad since the Government has been in power. It will continue to increase because of the way in which we have tackled our problems at home.
    Dr. Thomas: Does the Prime Minister recollect that in March last year she officially opened the Ysbyty Gwynedd, albeit the hospital had already been opened three years previously? Is she now aware that the authority is labouring under an accumulated underfunding of £2 million? What is she telling us, as Members of Parliament for that authority, to tell the people of Gwynedd, who are faced with substantially reduced services under the control of her Welsh Office?
    The Prime Minister: I remember the visit very well. The hospital was working extremely well and both patients and medical staff were extremely happy with it. I do not recognise what the hon. Member is saying. Vastly increased resources for the Health Service have been provided for Wales, because under the policies of the Government we have had growth which has enabled us to have both tax cuts and increased resources for the Health Service.
    Mr. Tim Smith: To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 12 January.
    The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Smith: I refer my right hon. Friend again to the Ministerial and Other Salaries Order 1987, which took effect on 1 January. In view of the disgraceful scenes in the House yesterday and the continuing inability of the Opposition Chief Whip to—
    Mr. Speaker: Order. That is not the responsibility of the Prime Minister.
    Mr. Smith: In view of the—
    Hon. Members: Name him.
    Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Member cannot ask a question about the actions of the Opposition Chief Whip.
    Mr. Smith: May I ask my right hon. Friend whether she believes, in the light of what occurred yesterday afternoon, that the salaries payable under the order can possibly be justified?
    The Prime Minister: The salaries under the order have passed through the House and no one has any power, short of there being another motion, to change them. I agree with the spirit behind my hon. Friend's question. As this is the mother of Parliaments, we in this House have a very heavy responsibility for the way in which we conduct our proceedings, and a heavy responsibility always to support Mr. Speaker in the excellent way that he carries out his task.
    Mr. Livingstone: To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 12 January.
    The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Livingstone: Will the Prime Minister take time in what remains of today to consider whether her Ministers may have inadvertently misled Parliament in 1982 when they reported to the House that the inquiry by Sir George Terry in relation to the Kincora boys' home would be fair and impartial? In order to do so, will she ask to see the confidential Sussex police files concerning investigated allegations linking Anthony Blunt with several promiment figures in Northern Ireland, who escaped prosecution for their crimes because, had a prosecution been brought, it would have revealed the immunity granted to Anthony Blunt? Were her Ministers aware when they appointed Sir George Terry, who was chief constable of Sussex, that his officers had been involved in this cover-up?
    The Prime Minister: Prosecution is not a matter for me. It is a matter for the prosecuting authorities. If the hon. Gentleman has any new evidence, he should present it to them.
    Mr. Nicholas Baker: In the light of the many cases of alleged child abuse, will my right hon. Friend base her social policies firmly on the need to strengthen family life and to educate young people for parenthood, rather than give greater control of children to social workers and doctors? While retaining penalties for those who mistreat children, will my right hon. Friend recognise that the upbringing of children is a matter for parents?
    The Prime Minister: I agree with my hon. Friend about the importance of family life and the lessons that are learnt at home. He links his question to child abuse, but he will be the first to know that this presents very sensitive problems to social workers and other people who have to decide when to go into a home because they think that a child is being abused, neglected or ill-treated. It is not an easy question for anyone to answer, but it is supremely important and involves social workers, legislators and neighbours.
    Ms. Armstrong: To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 12 January.
    The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Lady to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
    Ms. Armstrong: I am sure that the Prime Minister will want to assure the House that she is concerned about the protection of public health standards, particularly in relation to the prevention of AIDS and cervical cancer. Will she therefore assure us that she will not allow the back-door privatisation of pathology laboratories in order to save money, and that she will make sure that the protection of standards is the most important, indeed the only, issue that she is prepared to consider?
    The Prime Minister: The protection of standards applies equally to the public and private sectors. It is the protection of standards that is important, not whether things are carried out in the public or private sector. If they can be carried out with better value for money in the private sector, that releases more money for more health care.
    Sir Antony Buck: During the course of the day, will my right hon. Friend take time to consider material that she will have gathered from her highly successful tour of Africa? Is she aware that the vibes coming to those of us who recently visited Kenya suggest that it was an enormously valuable visit in assisting President Moi to deal with the difficult problems of containing racism and tribalism?
    The Prime Minister: I am grateful to my hon. and learned Friend. It was an extremely interesting and valuable visit. Kenya and this country have a very friendly
    144
    relationship. We give considerable aid to Kenya, something of the order of £50 million. One was able to see the excellent use to which that was put and the very good way in which that country is run.

    Newport, West
    Mr. Flynn: To ask the Prime Minister whether she has any plans to pay a further visit to Newport, West.
    The Prime Minister: I have at present no plans to do so.
    Mr. Flynn: Is the Prime Minister aware of the deep public anxiety felt by the people of Newport, West about the possibility of a new nuclear power station being added to the most crowded nuclear park in Europe, with eight nuclear reactors within a 25-mile radius of 241/4 million people? Is the Prime Minister aware of a statutory instrument which was introduced on the final sitting day before Christmas which will severely restrict the ability of the 8,000 protestors to present their case as fully and fairly as they could have done in the past? What action will the Prime Minister take to guarantee the right of protestors to present their case without obstacle or obstruction and with sufficient time?
    The Prime Minister: I think that the rights of protestors at any planning inquiry in this country exceed those in almost any other country. They are considerable. Any difficulty or protest should be presented either to the inquiry or to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State.

Department of Trade and Industry
3.31 pm
The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster and Minister of Trade and Industry (Mr. Kenneth Clarke): With permission, Mr. Speaker, I will make a statement about major changes in the role of the Department of Trade and Industry and its policies.
My right hon. and noble Friend Lord Young and I have been engaged in a major review of the main activities and organisation of DTI. Our decisions are set out in the White Paper entitled "DTI—the department for Enterprise" which will be laid before the House later today.
We conducted this review building on the new objectives for the DTI which we published on 13 October last year. In our opinion, considerable changes in the Government's support to industry will be required to face the challenges of 1992 and to succeed against ever increasing international competition.
In an economy with a GDP of some £400 billion, the main role of DTI, with its budget of £1 billion, must be, in conjunction with other Departments, to influence attitudes and to encourage open markets in order to promote enterprise and prosperity.
We will start by helping young people to learn about business and enterprise. We will work with employers with the aim of giving one teacher in 10 each year some personal experience of the world of business. We will further aim to ensure that every young person will have at least two weeks' work experience before leaving school as part of his or her preparation for employment.
We will help young people to become more knowledgeable about new technology. We shall increase our support for computer aided design and other advanced technologies in schools, further education and teacher training colleges.
We will work in partnership with commerce and industry to improve management education and development and spread awareness of best practices in new technologies. These are essential to the competitiveness of British industry and commerce.
We will help small and medium size firms to improve their performance in marketing, design, quality and advanced manufacturing methods. We are putting in hand forthwith a major new initiative to encourage firms with fewer than 500 employees to take expert consultancy advice in these key management functions. We will extend the programmes in April to cover business planning and financial and information systems. We will provide more than £50 million in the next financial year and some £250 million in total in the three years to 1991 to encourage firms to take advantage of this initiative.
In 1992 the single European market will be completed, ending most barriers to trade within the EC. The opening of the Channel tunnel in 1993 will make us physically a part of this much bigger market for all our goods and services. We will therefore make it a priority to help business prepare for, and benefit from, this great extension of the market within which we must compete.
The need to open up competitive markets is an essential strand in DTI's policies. Competition policy is the key element in that process.
As a result of the review which my right hon. Friend the then Secretary of State for Trade and Industry announced in the House in June 1986, we propose a fundamental
146
overhaul of the Restrictive Trade Practices Act. It has been proved increasingly ineffective in controlling damaging illegal cartels. The new legislation which we are considering would prohibit agreements 'with anticompetitive effects. It would be backed by stronger investigative powers and effective penalties. A detailed Green Paper on this will be issued shortly.
The review also covered mergers. The main but not exclusive consideration in mergers policy will continue to be the need to maintain competitive market conditions. We are proposing two principal changes to speed up the decisions on whether individual mergers can go ahead. The first would be a new formal, but voluntary, procedure for giving advance notice of prospective mergers. This would give automatic clearance for simple cases within four weeks. The second proposal would give more flexibility in dealing with possible competition problems. The Director General of Fair Trading would have the power to obtain legally binding undertakings from the parties to a merger over such issues as agreed divestment as an alternative to a reference to the Monopolies and Mergers Commission.
We are particularly concerned to encourage enterprise in the less prosperous areas of the country and in the inner cities—[Interruption.]—and we are having great success in doing so. We shall therefore be increasing and strengthening DTI's regional office network and expanding its role. The new consultancy initiatives which I have just announced will offer higher levels of grant both in the assisted areas and in urban programme areas outside the assisted areas. Consultancy projects will receive support of two thirds of the cost in those areas compared with 50 per cent. in the rest of the country.
New incentives will be introduced from April this year to encourage the growth and development of small firms in development areas. Their growth will help the full revival of regional economies, which is the aim of our policy. Firms with fewer than 25 employees will be able to apply for investment grants of 15 per cent. towards the cost of fixed assets and innovation grants of 50 per cent. for product and process development. We shall be targeting our help on those firms at a critical stage of their development, those which may not yet have developed the key management skills needed to survive and compete. Our policies are designed to encourage self-generated business development in the regions, both in manufacturing and in services, so that there is a broader, lasting base for economic growth.
Regional selective assistance will remain available in the development and intermediate areas. Unlike regional development grant, regional selective assistance requires companies to show that they genuinely need public money in order to proceed, and that their projects are viable and will produce identifiable and significant benefits. Internationally mobile projects, for example, will therefore be able to benefit from regional selective assistance as before.
We have concluded that this approach to business development will do more to strengthen regional economies than an automatic subsidy to all capital investment. A Bill will therefore be introduced today to end the RDG scheme. No new applications for grant will be accepted after 31 March this year. The Bill will provide for transitional arrangements. These changes will apply in Scotland and Wales as well as in England, and I am speaking on behalf of my right hon. Friends the respective Secretaries of State for those territories. Regional policy

147
will remain based on the existing regional map. Let me make it clear that we are not proposing any reduction in the Government's total regional spending, but we believe that existing resources can be spent more effectively than hitherto.
Inner cities will be benefit from the higher level of grant for the consultancy initiatives. The Government will be publishing a review of their policies for the inner cities in due course and will be taking steps to encourage more private sector involvement in urban regeneration.
We have also reviewed our Department's policy on civil research and development. In future we shall concentrate our help on collaborative research projects and the transfer of technology which would otherwise not take place. The White Paper announces our support for new collaborative programmes in both information technology and superconductivity. Research and development which is at the stage of commercial exploitation should be the responsibility of the private sector. The general schemes of single-company support for innovation are therefore being ended today. We believe that our spending on research and development will he more effectively used in collaborative research bringing different companies and the academic world much closer together.
DTI will be a catalyst for enterprise, innovation and change. But enterprising attitudes will develop only in open markets. We will therefore continue our efforts to cut red tape so that business can concentrate on its primary task of creating the wealth on which society depends.
The proposed changes in policies which I have announced will result in an increase in spending by DTI over the provision that was planned last year. Our proposed expenditure on regional programmes in Great Britain represents an increase over earlier plans. We will also increase previously planned expenditure and support for collaborative research, technology transfer and small business innovation.
The White Paper also announces changes in the organisation of DTI which will enable it to be more effective in the delivery of its services. The enterprise initiative will be marketed clearly and strongly so that business is aware of the potential for action through self-help, and the expansion of our regional network will enable us to get closer to our customers where they live and work.
Furthermore, industry divisions in DTI, which up to now have been seen as sponsoring specific industries, will be replaced by market divisions which focus on the markets for a range of goods and services rather than specific supplier industries. Emphasis will be given in our work to issues which span all industry and commerce, especially in technology.
The changes which are announced in the White Paper are very comprehensive, and reflect the objectives which we set for DTI last year. Real change, to give Britain a lasting basis for prosperity, requires individuals to alter the way in which they manage their businesses and approach their work. The best way to accomplish this is to influence people's attitudes, to help them acquire the skills and information which they need to compete effectively and to give them the scope and opportunity in open markets to compete. The White Paper policies which I have outlined today represent this consistent and co-ordinated strategy for enterprise. DTI — the Department for enterprise—will now carry this enterprise strategy forward.
Mr. Tony Blair: This is obviously a statement of major importance for the regions and industry of our country, and we trust that there will be a full debate on it before too long. Our view is that it represents the culmination of a process that, stripped of its pretensions, ends today in the effective abandonment of the regional policy of successive Governments over 25 years. Whatever the rhetoric, the reality of these proposals will be devastating in its consequences for the unity of the country and the vitality of our industry.
Will the Minister agree with me that the whole credibility of his package hangs on his pledge to maintain funding? Will he admit that the principal part of regional aid is regional development grant, which is now to be cut, that from 1979 to 1986 a £300 million cut in regional grant occurred, that this year there is a projected further cut of £300 million and that now regional development grant is to be abandoned altogether? Is it surprising that we regard this pledge as an empty promise signifying nothing?
Does the Minister agree with the survey made by his own Department, that regional development grant has saved or created some 600,000 jobs over the past few years—40,000 in the past year alone? Now that regional development grant is to be abandoned, leaving only regional selective assistance, is he seriously telling us that he expects, if funding is to remain level, a fivefold increase in successful applications for regional selective assistance? How many capital projects will now have to be abandoned? How many small firms entitled to automatic help will now no longer get it? The main reason why regional development grant is important is that it provides certainty, stability and international capital — and our own capital demands that.
We welcome any proposal that assists small businesses and any new grants that help them, but why does help for small businesses have to come at the expense of help for large ones? Is not the truth of the matter, as any industrialist will tell us, that regions need small and large businesses to succeed?
The Minister talked about his new business consultancy centres. Will he tell us whether the funds for those centres will be on top of the existing programmes or will come out of that money? He talked of a one-stop shop. We in the north-east have been asking for a one-stop shop for years: it is called the northern development agency. Will we obtain that under his proposals?
The truth is that many of the proposals will cover a wide range of matters, and will require careful scrutiny. Let me pick the Minister up on one in particular--the Government's competition policy. I welcome the implicit recognition that competition policy under the present Government has been a lamentable failure. If the Minister wishes to examine the ways in which he can open up competition policy, he might start with his own privatised industries, British Airways and British Petroleum.
I also ask the Minister — [Interruption.] — With respect, this was a detailed statement, and we are entitled to make a detailed reply.
What is surprising about this document is what it omits, as well as what it puts in. Where is there any recognition from the "Department of enterprise" that we have one of the largest balance of trade deficits in manufacturing industry? Where is the acknowledgment that we are falling behind in science and technology? Why is the only

149
proposal on research and development to chop one part of it? Where are the bold new initiatives, the new seizing of opportunities?
Ultimately, the proposals are nothing but philosophy without cash. Why cannot the Minister understand that what industry wants is not the absence of Government, but their presence in partnership; not a retreat into the attitudes of the 19th century, but a willingness to meet the challenges of the 21st?
Mr. Clarke: My right hon and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales, my right hon. and noble Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry and every other member of the Government, including myself, are not going to abandon regional policy. We are, however, changing it drastically, because we think that we can make it more effective. The hon. Gentleman had plainly prepared the section of his questions dealing with regional policy before he listened to the statement, and did not follow the statement when I made it.
Certainly regional development grants will be cut. We prefer to concentrate on regional selective assistance, new investment grants for small companies in the development areas and preferential rates of grants for new consultancy services, which will strengthen the quality of businesses in the regions — particularly small and medium size businesses — to ensure that they are genuine, lasting, successful businesses and not just branch-line enterprises.
The hon. Gentleman was right to say that, in the past, we have made claims for the regional development grant, which was a very useful instrument of regional policy. However, we are now changing the nature of the grant because of the change in economic circumstances. Most notably, a huge increase in investment is going ahead in the regions, and unemployment is now falling faster there than in the rest of the United Kingdom. The time has therefore come for a system that gives a grant to any applicant for any capital investment, regardless of whether that grant is needed to make a project go ahead, and regardless of any tests of the viability or commercial desirability of what is proposed.
We shall be able to make use of selective assistance to assist projects which would not go ahead without Government aid, and which are of demonstrated commerical value to the region, as well as introducing the new grants for smaller firms and the new advisory services on preferential terms in the assisted areas.
The Labour party's commitment to the regions is obviously based on being wedded to the traditional policies, come what may. Labour Members do not acknowledge that the Government are making more sensible use of an increased sum over the next three years, compared with published plans, in the light of the improved economic climate.
I am delighted by what I took to be a welcome for the enterprise initiative—the new advisory services for small business. At this late stage, I will not invite the hon. Gentleman to join me and my colleagues on the platform as we launch the enterprise initiative across the country. However, as he supports improved services for small businesses and the strength of small business, I am sure
150
that he will continue to give support to and approval for what we do as we develop and promote the new project that we are proposing for customers in business.
I did not quite understand the hon. Gentleman's comments on total spending. If he examines the White Paper to be published shortly by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer, he will find that, compared with what was planned in previous years, DTI spending is increased for the next few years concentrating on research and development and regional policy of the kind that I have described.
I am sure that those who examine competition policy in more depth than the hon. Gentleman will find that our proposal is an improvement on the present position. They will rebut the hon. Gentleman's general economic points. He referred to industrial policy in an industrial economy that is now the most successful in western Europe. He referred to changes in policy that I believe will support the continued revival of the British economy, particularly in the regions, and the continued fall in unemployment.
Sir William Clark: My right hon. and learned Friend should ignore the Opposition's carping criticism because under no circumstances can anyone in his right mind say that the economy today is not in better shape than it was when we took it over, with production up and borrowing down.
My right hon. and learned Friend's statement will be welcomed warmly, particularly by business. The involvement of the education system with the business sector should have happened years ago. Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware that we welcome the change that he has suggested in mergers and the competitiveness of British industry, which is increasing?
The Government have got it absolutely right. Unemployment will fall only if we have more small businesses. Unemployment will be reduced as a result of the emphasis on small business and through the grants that will be given to small business—[Interruption.]
Mr. Speaker: Order. I apologise for stopping the hon. Gentleman, but many right hon. and hon. Members wish to participate. Hon. Members must ask questions and not make speeches.
Mr. Clarke: I thank my hon. Friend and I agree that it is essential that we continue to improve the links between industry and schools. Pupils and parents want the closer links between business and industry to prepare young people for employment. A great deal is already being done, but we have set ourselves ambitious targets to improve the contact of teachers and pupils with industry. We require the co-operation of industry and the employers now to provide that contact.
I entirely agree with my right hon. Friend's comments about the key nature of small and medium size business. The growth in employment in the economy has been spectacular over the past few years, and almost all of that growth has arisen in the small and medium size business sector. We must concentrate on strengthening it still further.
Mr. Tony Benn: I have only just had the opportunity to look through the statement. Will the Minister tell the House what references there are to the trade unions in the document?
Mr. Clarke: The right hon. Gentleman need not feel disadvantaged. The hon. Member for Sedgefield (Mr.

151
Blair), the Opposition Front Bench spokesman, was present but did not listen to the statement. Therefore, the right hon. Gentleman starts from the same point as his colleague.
There is no mention of the trade unions in the document, but all trade unionists who wish to see a strengthening of the economy and growing prospects for employment will, I believe, support our objectives.
Mr. Leon Brittan: Will my right hon. and learned Friend accept that the vast majority of his proposals will be welcomed as being imaginative and constructive? Will he also accept that, in spite of the fact that economic growth is proceeding in all the regions, the discrepancy in the levels of employment between the different regions means that an active and vigorous regional policy should remain a top priority of the Government?
Will my right hon. and learned Friend also accept that, although there is nothing sacrosanct about previous methods of assistance, there were real advantages in a system whereby a business man was aware that, if he satisfied a published criterion, he was entitled as of right to regional assistance instead of having to go cap in hand to civil servants or Ministers asking for discretion to be exercised?
Does my right hon. and learned Friend therefore agree that if the Government are to have the necessary support to show that this policy is an improvement in regional policy and not a cut, they will, above all, have to satisfy the country that when all the proposals have been implemented the amount of money being spent on regional policy in real terms is at least as much as it is today?
Mr. Clarke: I took pleasure a moment ago in the rapidly falling rate of unemployment in the regions of Britain. I agree with my right hon. and learned Friend that the discrepancies are still excessive. As we change regional policy, we want to ensure that it continues to be effective, and to operate policies which reduce those discrepancies.
My right hon. and learned Friend is right in saying that the regional development grant carried with it an element of certainty. However, that certainty came from the fact that, whenever investment took place at the right place on the map, after the investment decision had been taken, it was possible for any investor to get a public sector contribution, whether or not he needed it, to go ahead with that investment. The time has come, when the economy is doing so well and when so much investment has been spontaneously generated, for us to look at ways of using that money more effectively in the regions, and it is important that we do that.
Particularly valuable are those parts of the policy that concentrate on strengthening the quality of management and business performance in the regions. The regions do not want second-class small and medium size businesses. They do not want an economy dominated by manufacturing at the expense of services. They want an economy as effective as that in the south, and of the same type as that in the south. Moving towards that, the support that we are giving to improving management, quality, design and financial control at preferential rates in the development areas will be of particular value. We must make sure that our policies support the continued improvement of the regions vis-a-vis the rest of the United Kingdom.
Mr. Malcolm Bruce: Will the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster accept that there will be considerable dismay in the regions of England, Scotland and Wales that the proposals represent an extension of the stranglehold of central Government on the administering of regional funds? Would it not be more appropriate if the regions were given more discretion and control to determine their own priorities?
Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman accept that one of the problems facing Britain today is the imbalance between the south of England and the rest of the country in terms of control and ownership of enterprise and industry, and that there is nothing in the White Paper to reverse that process? Will he accept that, in spite of his assurances about small businesses, in reality it will he the biggest firms that will have the slickest presentation and will secure a greater share of the grants than is now the case? If he really wishes to help small businesses, will he assist them in their role as unpaid tax collectors and administrators for central Government, as many of them would welcome that?
The Minister's conversion on competition policy will be welcomed on these Benches, but it is regarded, after eight years, as rather late, in view of the Government's record in creating some of the biggest centralist cartels and monopolies in the world, such as British Telecom and British Gas, and his total failure to stand up to the takeover of British Caledonian by British Airways. Will he tell the House—[Interruption.] The hon. Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair) gave a detailed response to the statement. I shall do the same. Will the Minister tell the House what is to happen to the regulation of competition provided by those companies in future? There is an urgent need for a parliamentary debate on that matter. There is a great deal in the White Paper and the Government should provide time to ensure that it is fully and properly discussed.
The Minister has not shown that he understands the needs of the regions, or of competition and enterprise.
Mr. Clarke: I certainly do not think that the White Paper represents any extension of centralised control. I share the reservations expressed by many hon. Members about over-centralised administration by government in London over the rest of the country. I have announced today—I referred to it twice in the statement—that we are greatly extending the regional network of the DTI and getting closer to our customers, who are the managers of business and commerce in the regions, and we will be shifting the balance of our work to the regions to deliver the new policies. Nothing that and my right hon. and noble Friend are proposing will intrude on the considerable amount of devolved power that is already exercised by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland. The Scottish Development Agency will be used as the agency for a large part of the policy north of the border.
With regard to large companies taking advantage of the proposals that we have announced, the hon. Gentleman will see that the emphasis is in completely the opposite direction. The new grants in the development areas are concentrated on the smallest firms with up to 25 employees. The new enterprise initiative is aimed at small and medium size businesses across Great Britain with up

153
to 500 employees. Therefore, we are looking in the direction of helping small and medium size businesses in particular.
The hon. Gentleman talked about businesses as tax collectors. Deregulation and the cutting of red tape is also an important part of our policy to help small companies.
On competition, I advise the hon. Gentleman to await our Green Paper on restrictive trade practices and to look in detail at our proposed reforms of competition policy. We are strengthening and modernising that area of policy, and our aim is to make open, competitive markets, which means guarding against monopoly and unfair cartels.
Several Hon. Members rose—
Mr. Speaker: Order. I heard the Minister say that a Bill was to be introduced which will allow a debate on the matter. Therefore, I ask hon. Members to confine themselves to short rather than long and rambling questions.
Mr. Norman Tebbit: Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware that the general thrust of moving away from automatic grants paid regardless of need or the viability of a scheme will be welcomed, but will he explain how the placing of an excessive load on applicants will be avoided, and, similarly, how he will avoid officials becoming unduly embroiled in taking commercial decisions on behalf of businesses?
Mr. Clarke: I welcome my right hon. Friend's support for the abolition of automatic regional development grant. Having been in the Department of Trade and Industry, he will appreciate that if one is against automatic regional development grant, any type of grant that is retained will be selective and some process must be applied. I assure him that we appreciate the need to make sure that that process does not become bureaucratic, onerous for the applicant or gives too much arbitrary power to those administering it. We shall obviously be relying on the Industrial Development Advisory Board, which is composed of senior outside industrialists appointed to advise us on the commercial appraisal of projects, and many outside secondees with industrial and commercial experience who move in and out of the Department are helping us to appraise projects.
We shall be concentrating on the key test, not just rewriting the business plans of an applicant. We shall make sure that so-called additionality—the requirement for grant in order to enable a project to go ahead—will be the key point on which we concentrate. For the smaller firms, all that can be too onerous and that is why we have proposed a special scheme for the development areas. Grants for companies under the ceiling of 25 employees will be operated in a much more streamlined way with just a check to make sure that there is commercial viability. —[Interruption.]
Mr. Speaker: Hon. Members on both sides of the House should not shout across the Chamber. The hon. Member for Langbaurgh (Mr. Holt) did so once before, and I did not like it.
Mr. Barry Jones: The right hon. and learned Gentleman's statement is nowhere near as good as he makes out because it completely ignores the real terms cuts in regional aid since 1979. Does he
154
guarantee that large British companies seeking to locate and expand in Wales will not be worse off as a result of the statement? Is it not the case that the Secretaries of State for Scotland and Wales fiercely resisted the proposal to abolish regional development grants? Is not today's statement a real body blow to the hopes of Wales to build on the ashes of unemployment and to make a new economy?
Mr. Clarke: In making the comparison with 1979, the hon. Gentleman is going back to the first stages of regional development grant when grant was paid automatically regardless of its effect in creating jobs. Sometimes grants were given to huge capital intensive investment which replaced employees in firms receiving the grant. That is why when we moved, I think three years ago, to the second stage of regional development grant, making grants subject to a cost per job limit and linking them to labour intensive parts of the economy, it was generally welcomed. That inevitably resulted in some worthwhile savings in public expenditure because the money previously expended was not going on the chosen objectives. It is certainly not true to say that there has been any competition between the territorial Departments. My right hon. Friends the Secretaries of State for Scotland and Wales agreed with the policy and will derive benefit from it.
On regional development grant and regional selective assistance alone this year, the Department of Trade and Industry looks like spending £254 million compared with a planned spend in last year's White Paper of £225 million. By 1990–91 that will have gone up to £264 million, compared with the figure of £232 million based on the last White Paper. Therefore, there is an increase in expenditure on previous years' approved plans. However, it is not the level of expenditure in which I really take comfort, but the more intelligent and sophisticated use of the money which bears more relation to today's economic circumstances of growth, expansion and rising employment in the regions already.
Mr. Michael Heseltine: Will my right hon. and learned Friend accept that we support his attempts to obtain better value for money from the existing regional programme, but will he recognise that overlying regional policy and far more damaging to the regions are the present tax regimes which have the effect, through their capital nature, of destroying family businesses, and, through the subsidies that flow to the pension funds and financial institutions, of draining far more money out of the regions than any other regional policy can ever replace? Will my right hon. and learned Friend consult his right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer so that we can try to introduce some fiscal neutrality between the regions and the centre which could enable small businesses to grow in the provinces and remain locally based and controlled there?
Mr. Clarke: I shall certainly consult my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer, who is in his place on the Front Bench. I think that my right hon. Friend the Member for Henley (Mr. Heseltine) will concede that the Government have made great advances in easing the burden of capital taxes on small businesses, and business start-ups in particular. We now have the lowest rate of corporate taxation in the EC, an important stimulus to business and to profitable business in particular. In

155
addition, I cannot help mentioning that the unified business rate will bring enormous advantages to the north of England in particular and will represent a massive shift of public resources from the south of England to the north when it takes full effect in 1990.
Mr. Ernie Ross: Since Ford's decision to locate in Dundee would not have been made without regional development grants, can the Minister assure us that the one-door approach used by the Scottish Development Agency, Dundee district council and Tayside regional council to attract industry to Dundee will not be affected by the changes that he has announced this afternoon?
Mr. Clarke: I will refer the hon. Gentleman's point about Dundee to my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland. I think that he is telling me that it will not be affected.
I agree that regional development grant has played a major part in getting us to where we are now, but I am now explaining the need for change to make better use of the sums of money about which we are talking. We have the support, for example, of the Scottish Council (Development and Industry), which recently reported to my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland on enterprise development—the next stage in the evolution of regional policy. Section 3(5) on page 4 said:
"Despite the division of opinion on direct intervention in investment decisions the balance of opinion favours some form of grant aid, albeit on a selective rather than automatic basis."
That is the position that we are now contemplating.
Mr. Kenneth Warren: While I applaud my right hon. and learned Friend's initiative in seeking to link Government sponsorship of research with market opportunities, may I ask him if he will extend that initiative and examine the opportunity that presents itself for the Government to examine their own position as a customer in the market place and to try to co-ordinate some of their public purchasing policies to achieve a stimulus of research in return? In that context, will he comment on his further views of the Alvey follow-on programme and the space programme?
Mr. Clarke: I thank my hon. Friend for his opening comments on research and development. We need to examine how we can use Government money most effectively in those areas. By and large, we seek to improve the climate so that industry itself can put more of its resources into research and development. Industry is likely to do that when projects are nearing the market place. That is why we are concentrating on collaborative research bringing together universities, higher education institutions and industry at an earlier stage.
On public procurement policy, we certainly look at the impact that we have on British industry and we shall continue to follow those policies. Today's White Paper includes the announcement of some further help for the information technology industry, although not in the previous Alvey form. The time has come to move on from that very successful policy. If my hon. Friend studies the White Paper, he will find that we have chosen objectives that will further collaborative research, bringing together partners who cannot be expected to come together without
156
the stimulus of Government money. Other companies can proceed on their own on the basis of what they have already derived from the Alvey initiative.
Our present commitment to the space programme and the substantial expenditure that we incur on it will continue and we shall remain full members of the European Space Agency. So far, however, we have declined to take part in optional programmes in which British participation would have been minimal and whose scientific and commercial advantage to this country did not justify the expenditure proposed.
Mr. Bruce Millan: Is the Minister aware that the abandonment of regional development grants will be disastrous for industry in Scotland and similar areas? Is he further aware that anyone who knows anything about regional policy will not believe for one moment that his proposals can possibly maintain existing expenditure on the regions, even at its considerably reduced level following Government cuts in recent years? Expenditure is bound to decrease and there is not a single figure in the White Paper to sustain the Minister's claim. This is bad news for Scotland and for every other region.
Mr. Clarke: I hear what the right hon. Gentleman says about regional policy, given that he has considerable standing and experience in these matters. With respect, he is concentrating on the ending of one form of grant and is failing to take on board the substantial new measures and the change in emphasis in our policies. The right hon. Gentleman's views are not shared by the Scottish Council! or the Scottish CBI, which supports our proposal. I can only repeat that the sums in this White Paper are substantially higher than those in the 1987 White Paper. The figures do not anticipate a fall in expenditure over the next three years—quite the reverse in the near term. The debate on that can be continued more sensibly when the White Paper is published shortly and the figures are available.
Mr. Michael Grylls: Does my right hon. and learned Friend accept that the move away from excessive paternalism and automatic grants is welcome and that his determination to achieve value for money spent in the regions will be popular? Very few people accept that we have had good value for money from all that we have spent on the regions over the years. My right hon. and learned Friend's determination to help small and medium size firms will be widely welcomed—particularly the toughening up of anti-competitive practices laws, which most people accept have been very weak. Such firms need a fair market in which to operate successfully and, as my right hon. and learned Friend said, they will bring wealth and jobs to the regions.
Mr. Clarke: I am grateful for my hon. Friend's remarks about automatic grants, and plainly I agree with them. My hon. Friend is something of a specialist on small firms policy and I am grateful for his support of our moves to offer consultancy services to small firms to improve their performance in key areas of business such as design, marketing and financial control.
I agree with my hon. Friend that the time has come to overhaul the law on restrictive trade practices, which is proving ineffective. No doubt in due course we shall hear my hon. Friend's contribution on the Green Paper which

157
will contain proposals as to how we might make the present rules more effective to give better protection to small firms suffering from unfair practices.
Mr. Eric S. Heifer: Is it not clear that, without the regional policies pursued by every previous Government, unemployment in the regions would have been much higher than it is now? Is it not clear that all previous Governments have been presented with proposals for selective assistance but that for very practical reasons — some of them explained by Conservative Members—such proposals have been rejected? Is it not clear that the present proposals represent the abandonment of all previous Governments' regional policies, which will not help to solve the problem of unemployment in the regions in the long run? The proposals will have the opposite effect from that which the Government believe that they will have and the Government's policy will end in disaster for those in the regions.
Mr. Clarke: The hon. Gentleman makes an extraordinarily broad-brush point in claiming that previous Governments have abandoned the principle of selective assistance altogether and always had automatic grants. Until now we have had both selective assistance and automatic grants and we now propose to end automatic grants and give greater emphasis to selective grants. Regional selective assistance has been with us for a long time; it is quite venerable. I am sure that if one examined the record of the previous Labour Government one would find that their regional selective assistance, combined with their selective assistance under section 8 of the Industry Act, amounted to a greater use of selectivity in grant giving than the present Government propose. Therefore, the hon. Gentleman's broad argument cannot be sustained.
Sir Raymond Gower: Can my right hon. and learned Friend confirm that in Wales the cumulative effect of the changes could mean greater flexibility for the Secretary of State for Wales without the diminution of resources? Can he assure us that nothing in the proposed changes will handicap the Secretary of State or the Welsh Development Agency in assembling a package to attract companies from abroad?
Mr. Clarke: I can give my hon. Friend all those assurances quite straightforwardly. I am confident that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales, too, will give those assurances emphatically and will act upon them.
Mr. John D. Taylor: What are the implications of the proposals for changes in Government support for the regions for the operation of the European social fund and the European regional development fund? Under the proposals to change the assisted areas boundaries, will not some firms which qualify for fund support from Europe at present cease to qualify?
Mr. Clarke: I think that my statement made that clear, but the right hon. Gentleman may not have been able to hear me. We are not changing the boundaries of the assisted areas. One reason for that is that it is inevitably a protracted process involving consultation on either side of the border. Such a change also has to be cleared with the European Community because it has implications for European Community grants. When we embark on that process, it takes up to two and half years for the map to
158
be fully reviewed. Therefore, entitlement to European grants will not be affected by the announcement. A review is being undertaken in the European Community at the moment to examine the future of the social fund, which will settle matters, including the eligibility of areas, for the next period of the fund.
Sir Peter Blaker: My right hon. and learned Friend's statement contained many excellent proposals, but is he aware that it is regrettable that the Government have not set under way a review of the boundaries of assisted areas? For example, Blackpool and the Fylde, which lost its assisted area status and therefore its access to the European regional development fund in 1984, now has an unemployment rate exceeding the average for all the intermediate areas. Has not the time come to set such a review under way?
Mr. Clarke: My right hon. Friend is a persistent advocate of the case for Blackpool regaining the assisted area status that it had until three years ago. For the reasons that I have just given, a full review of the boundaries is not a straightforward process by any means. It involves full consultation with all those with views about their status—whether in a development area as opposed to an intermediate area or an intermediate area as opposed to any other area. Such a process must also have the consent of the European Community.
For that reason, it was simply not feasible for us to embark on such a review comparatively soon after the last one, and certainly not since the last election, since my right hon. and noble Friend and I have been at the Department. We do not intend to embark on that, at least not until we see how the new policies settle down.
Mr. Stan Crowther: Does the Minister agree that some of the worst levels of unemployment are found not in the inner cities but in the traditional manufacturing towns and colliery villages in, for example, areas such as the Rotherham and Mexborough travel-to-work area which, according to the Government's own fiddled figures, already has 20 per cent. of its people out of work? The Minister has assured the House that there will not be a reduction in total Government spending on regional policy, but will he assure us that there will not be a cut in aid to any individual development area, such as Rotherham and Mexborough?
Mr. Clarke: In future, our aid will be concentrated on selective assistance to those firms that can demonstrate that they need the grant to go ahead in such an area, on the new grant for small firms in development areas and on the consultancy services and the business improvement initiatives that I have announced which, I hope, will raise the quality of business throughout the United Kingdom, and especially in the assisted areas, because there will be a higher level of grant for that consultancy in the assisted areas and in the urban programme areas also.
As I have said, our published plans for 1988 will show increased expenditure compared with what was planned in 1987. We intend to maintain the level of spend in the regions. As some of the measures that I have announced will depend very much on demand, on people coming forward with applications for selective assistance and on small firms responding to the opportunities that we are presenting in the business initiatives, it is not possible to guarantee the level of spend in any particular locality. Our

159
planned expenditure is what we are aiming at. That is why we will market our policies so heavily to those who we believe will benefit from them. —[Interruption.] I hope that the hon. Member for Rotherham (Mr. Crowther) will restrain some of his hon. Friends from denouncing the fact that we spend money on letting the businesses in his constituency know what we have on offer.
Mr. Allan Stewart: I congratulate my right hon. and learned Friend on a sensible and imaginative package of changes to regional policy. Further to the point made by the hon. Member for Dundee, West (Mr. Ross), will my right hon. and learned Friend assure the House that under the revised system it will be possible for us to offer competitive financial packages to internationally mobile projects? Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that a major factor influencing such decisions is the quality of suppliers and, therefore, his moves to improve that will not only enhance the performance of our regions but improve their attractiveness to inward investment?
Mr. Clarke: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his comments and agree that a key part of our policy is that Great Britain—Scotland, England and Wales—should be able to offer competitive packages of assistance to inward investors in the case of those genuinely mobile projects which, if we were unable to offer a package, might be tempted to France, Ireland or somewhere else. Therefore, we have made sure that that is retained in our package.
As my hon. Friend said, we do not attract investors to this country just by offering them good packages of grants. A growing level of inward investment comes to this country because of the general economic state of the country, the feeling that the quality of component suppliers and support industries is good and because industrial relations are better than they used to be. Our package will help to produce quality in small and medium size companies so that they will give the good quality components to Japanese, American and other businesses which will help to draw more of them here.
Mr. Alex Salmond: Given that the Secretary of State for Scotland, the Walter Mitty of Scottish politics, seems to believe that he is in charge of regional policy in Scotland, would it not have been diplomatic for the Minister to have allowed his right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State to read even one sentence of the statement? Given that total regional spending in Scotland has fallen by more than half—from £525 million to £242 million—during the past 10 years, what credibility can we invest in assurances that the budget will not be squeezed further? Given that the Minister has selectively and disgracefully quoted the Scottish Council (Development and Industry), is he aware that that body has been among the most trenchant critics of the Government's dismantling of regional policy?
Mr. Clarke: If the hon. Gentleman, who represents the Scottish National party, is going to criticise the division of responsibilities between English and Scottish Ministers, with respect I advise him to discover what those responsibilities are now. The Department of Trade and Industry is and always has been the lead Department for regional policies. On the other hand, my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland has considerable devolved powers which he exercises through
160
the Scottish Development Agency and other bodies. There is no doubt that details of regional policy remain our responsibility and this policy does not change that.
I have already given reassurances about the figures and suggest only that the hon. Gentleman raises the same point during the debate on the Autumn Statement and especially when he sees the White Paper on public spending which will confirm what I have said about spending in all parts of the United Kingdom.
Mr. Robert Hicks: Although I welcome the retention of the Plymouth travel-to-work area as an assisted area, will my right hon. and learned Friend consider allowing that intermediate area to be eligible for the business improvement services scheme in view of the impending significant loss of jobs in the Devonport dockyard? Will he elaborate on the criteria that can be described as being "identifiable and significant benefits" for eligibility for the regional selective assistance grant in the future?
Mr. Clarke: The existing business improvement service is a European Community-inspired arrangement which is largely aimed at former steel, shipbuilding and other areas. It was a great success and was heavily over-subscribed in some places. We have drawn extensively on our experience of that in producing the domestic programmes that we have announced today. Large parts of the business and enterprise initiative that I have announced, which will give support to small and medium size firms, are very much drawn from the business improvement scheme. My hon. Friend's constituency will be one part of the country that will be eligible for the higher rate of grant for those companies that wish to have access to the enterprise initiative—[Interruption.] I shall not give in detail the criteria for RSA now because if I do I shall be accused of filibustering by the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner).
We are not changing the essential criteria or the statutory basis for regional selective assistance, but we shall put emphasis on additionality and making increased provision for RSA because we believe that some people who did not previously apply will apply now because the regional development grant is not available.
Mr. Giles Radice: Is the Minister aware that Opposition Members remain deeply sceptical about the Government's commitment to retain the same amount of money that is given to regional aid, first, because the Government have already cut regional aid by £300 million, as the Minister has admitted, and, secondly, because changing to aid on a selective basis enables the Government to cut by administrative fiat?
We have heard about the problems of the large firms, but there are also problems for smaller firms. Is the Minister aware that, despite his profession of Government support for small firms, the abolition of automatic grants will be a body blow to small firms because they do not have the knowhow or the time to apply for selective grants?
Mr. Clarke: I note the hon. Gentleman's scepticism about our commitment to the regions. I think that he is being over-cautious about a change in the nature of the support given to the regions. I do not know whether the. Labour party, which continually cites figures from 1979. wishes to return to regional policy exactly as it was and to

161
return to increased spending on all projects regardless of cost per job limits. A huge amount of money went into Sullom Voe. That was a desirable investment, conducted by oil companies, at the edge of the Shetlands and employing only a few people permanently, but it was put there because oil was there. The Labour Government's regional policy made a major contribution to that investment to the great benefit of the oil companies but not of the hon. Gentleman's constituency.
Small firms that are disadvantaged by applying for selective assistance are catered for in our White Paper to a considerable extent by the fact that the new grants that have been announced for the development areas will make it easy for firms with up to 25 employees to receive the grants that I announced for investment and innovation. The simplicity of the scheme aims, in part, at meeting the hon. Gentleman's point that it can sometimes be difficult for the smallest firms to go through the machinery of selective application.
Sir Anthony Grant: Can my right hon. and learned Friend confirm that the effect of his new regional policy will be to stem the migration of people from the assisted areas into high growth areas such as Cambridgeshire, where the pressures have become intolerable?
With regard to the welcome new initiative of linking small firms with the universities, will my right hon. and learned Friend please study the important initiatives of the company Cambridge Robotics, which have been referred to his Department and which are extremely interesting in this respect?
Mr. Clarke: For my own reasons, which coincide in part with those of my hon. Friend—I do not represent an East Anglian constituency, so our reasons are not wholly the same — I want a south to north flow of business and jobs, and therefore of people, if that reduces pressures on land prices, house values and planning applications in my hon. Friend's part of the country and in many others. To do that, we must encourage the continued growth of the northern economy and strengthen its quality of management, to ensure that the north performs at the best levels of marketing, quality, design and the other things that I have already mentioned. I trust that this policy will have the effect that my hon. Friend wants.
I shall certainly examine the case that my hon. Friend cited as an example of good links between industry and the universities. Cambridge science park and most things around Cambridge university are excellent examples of how British universities can catch up with the American practice of forging such links.
Mr. Joseph Ashton: Does the Minister agree that anyone with £100,000 to invest three or four years ago would have been better off buying a house in London, watching its value double, and getting a tax incentive to do so? Why do the farmers in the fat south receive protection and subsidies, and the defence industries get handouts; yet when it comes to northern industries, all they get is a dab of lipstick on the face and their crutches kicked away?
Mr. Clarke: The answer could lie in the late 1970s, when northern and midlands industries found that they
162
were surviving on nothing but a diet of protection, subsidies and handouts. That did not turn out successfully, and I do not think that that was an alternative policy to which we are likely to return.
Mr. Michael Fallon: Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that industrial development in the north-east has been fossilised by purely automatic grants that have gone to the same old companies year after year — companies that have been shedding rather than recruiting labour? Does he accept that small businesses in the north will be cheering his announcement tonight?
Will my right hon. and learned Friend confirm that the general effect of his proposals will be to reduce distortions between assisted and non-assisted areas, within assisted areas, between development areas and intermediate areas?
Mr. Clarke: I agree entirely with my hon. Friend's analysis. As he said, some firms became expert at obtaining grant because they knew it was available in a locality, and some larger firms relied openly on it. Skilled consultants, or their own employees, were successful in working the system and obtaining grants. We must make use of the money in the most effective fashion.
As regards distortions, there will be still a clear distinction between development areas, intermediate areas and the rest, but the abolition of regional development grant for example, will, to some extent, remove distortions as between intermediate and development areas.
Mr. Jack Thompson: In the time that the Minister took to present his statement, did he realise that he extended the division between the north and the south significantly? Does he recognise that, particularly in the north of England, there is a dearth of small businesses? When he talks of improving small businesses in such areas, does he accept that greater incentives than those that he has suggested are needed? There is also a need for support for larger industries in the north.
I was interested to hear the Minister's points about the links between industries and schools. They seemed to smack a little of a risk of returning to the position in the 1920s and 1930s, when industries were closely linked with schools. The coal owners in my constituency were the school governors, and if children did not go into the coal industry their parents lost their houses and the children became almost industrial clones. There is a distinct possibility of that happening again.
Does the Minister recognise that, in my constituency, the closure of Ashington colliery by the end of March will mean 350 jobs coming off the market? What, in his new proposals, will compensate for the loss of those jobs?
Mr. Clarke: I agree with part of the hon. Gentleman's analysis of the differences between the north and the south. It is true, in economic and employment terms, that the north still does not have a high enough proportion of people working in small and medium size industry, and that the start-up rate of small businesses is still not adequate in the north. There is a need to ensure that the small and medium size industry that is there achieves excellent standards of management of all kinds. It must be strong to survive and not only a branch line for less successful staff. All the policies that I have announced today are aimed in that direction.
Larger industries will also benefit. They do not need subsidies as much, and they do not need management

163
support. They have spare management capacity to look after their own marketing, design and exporting, but the climate is made more attractive for large firms if there is a good network of high-quality component suppliers. That, as my hon. Friend the Member for Eastwood (Mr. Stewart) said a moment ago, is what we are trying to develop in Scotland. I do not think that coal owners are likely to return to school governing boards.
As far as the loss of jobs in the hon. Gentleman's constituency is concerned, the continued success of the British economy, our ability to stimulate the creation of more small companies, to strengthen small companies that already exist and to carry on building on the success of the enterprise economy that we have already achieved is the best hope for those facing economic changes in his constituency.
Mr. Bill Walker: Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that one of the great achievements of the Government has been the reduction —indeed, the virtual removal—of restrictive practices in the unions and the skullduggery associated with them? Can he confirm that his proposed measures will have the same effect in the City? If so, will he confirm that the effect in Scotland will be to the benefit of Scottish-based companies?
Mr. Clarke: I agree with my hon. Friend that the improved climate of industrial relations and the fact that we now have the lowest number of strikes for 50 years have been important elements in the revival of the British economy. I agree that restrictive practices are undesirable anywhere. We have tackled them in the trade unions, and in the City with strong regulatory measures, but restrictive practices between large firms in the market place need to be tackled. That is why our Green Paper would ensure that genuinely competitive conditions were maintained, and I look forward to my hon. Friend's contribution to the consultations on it.
Mr. Geoffrey Lofthouse: Does the Minister agree that the reasons the Government gave for not redefining the boundaries of assisted areas were ill-conceived when one considers that the boundaries were fixed only in 1984? Does he realise that, since that time, in areas such as my Castleford travel-to-work area the mining industry has been wiped out with no assistance given? Will he tell the House what assistance there is in the Green Paper for areas such as that, or will Government policy continue to victimise miners and mining communities? Is it not time such victimisation stopped?
Mr. Clarke: I realise that one of the problems with having a map of any kind for regional policy is that there are always difficulties with boundaries. However, a map is essential for a regional policy, so the boundaries must be reviewed from time to time. That is a long and difficult process, involving an examination of the status of each area.
Such status must be cleared with the EEC and should not be embarked upon too readily. It might be regarded as completely fair to keep moving some travel-to-work areas in, and others out, year in year out, but it would create great uncertainty and diminish the effect of the grants that we offer to attract people to these areas.
I can offer a continuation and strengthening of present policy to areas that do not have assisted area status, and
164
what I have announced by way of the business initiative and the strengthening of small firms will make a valuable contribution to them.
Mr. Henry Bellingham: Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware that towns such as King's Lynn in my constituency, and other cities and towns in Norfolk, such as Norwich and Great Yarmouth, have consistently suffered as a result of distortions caused by regional policy? In the worst cases successful firms have even been bribed out of the area. Can he confirm that his statement will prevent such occurrences in the future and will be welcomed in Norfolk?
Mr. Clarke: There is a downside to regional policy. One of the points of the policy is to attract industry from areas of low unemployment to areas of high unemployment. I do not think I can offer my hon. Friend a reduction in the effectiveness of regional policy, but I can say that conditions in Norfolk and in the south-east—I admit, to a greater extent in the south-east — are being transformed so that complaints about poaching firms are becoming fewer in the parts of the country further to the south in which there are now acute shortages of skilled labour, in which costs of all sorts have soared, and where housing costs are getting out of control. So perhaps the problems will become fewer as we continue to maintain an effective regional policy.
Dr. Dafydd Elis Thomas: On a number of occasions the right hon. and learned Gentleman has said that he is speaking on behalf of his right hon. Friends the Secretaries of State for Scotland and for Wales. Is it not time that the House put a stop to this departmental arrogance? We should have statements made from the Welsh Office and the Scottish Office on issues such as regional policy that are crucial to the future of our economy. Can the Minister tell us whether this White Paper has the status of a paper that has the full support of the Scottish and Welsh Offices? Is it a policy paper from those Departments? The Secretary of State for Wales has spoken to us via a press release. We certainly welcome the fact that there will be 30 per cent. additional expenditure over planned figures for the Welsh Development Agency and that, in the coming year, £139 million will be spent on regional policy. However, that is still short of the £300 million, which was the value of RDG to Wales in 1980.
Will the Minister also explain exactly the Government's attitude to regional policy within the EEC? The Government have made great play of the fact that 1992 will mark the advent of the open market. Surely, within that context, a stronger, rather than a weaker, regional policy is required within the United Kingdom. Will the Minister assure us that the Government will stop preventing the EEC from allocating additional expenditure to its social and regional policy funds? What is the position for intermediate firms? We welcome the support for smaller firms, but does the Minister not realise that for the regional economies of Wales and Scotland, as well as for parts of England, the key sector for development is represented by intermediate firms? Will he assure us that there will be support for that type of company?
Mr. Clarke: It has always been the practice in this House, where a statement is made on a policy which has been agreed between the territorial Departments and which is to be applied in exactly the same way in England,

165
Scotland and Wales and where the arguments are exactly the same, that the lead Department makes the statement. Of course, it would be possible for my statement to be followed by a statement by my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland, followed by Scottish questioners, and for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales to make a statement, followed by Welsh questioners. We would all be talking about the same thing. My right hon. Friends prefer to remain within the mainstream of United Kingdom politics and I believe that they are right to do so.
With regard to regional policy within the EEC, we are taking considerable advantage of the social and regional funds. We are engaged in discussions with our partners in the EEC at the moment. We support the continuation of regional policy, but we must ensure that we get our fair share of the funds available and that they are used to good purpose in this country—that remains our main aim.
Mr. Anthony Beaumont-Dark: Does my right hon. and learned Friend accept that regional aids and industrial development certificates did Birmingham much more harm than good? The new Government scheme has much to recommend it. However, will my right hon. and learned Friend deal in more detail with two important points. Under the present system the Ministry acts as godfather. Under the new system it will act as God. The people involved in my right hon. and learned Friend's Department — wonderful though they are — have precious little industrial experience. Therefore, they will need to call upon outside people for advice and many of those people will be heavily involved in the economy of their own areas. How will we avoid a feeling of "jobs for the boys"? How will we sort things out so that this scheme will be run properly and fairly and the money will be spent in the right areas?
Mr. Clarke: I agree with my hon. Friend's first point. When Labour was in office it acted so that people could not invest in Birmingham and it refused industrial development certificates in the fond belief that that would be benefiting the United Kingdom economy and would drive people north. We have put an end to that and other things.
We are not changing the way in which regional selective assistance is operated. As I explained to my right hon. Friend the Member for Chingford (Mr. Tebbit), we shall continue to depend to a great extent on outside industrialists when appraising selective assistance applications. However, an important point touched upon by my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak (Mr. Beaumont-Dark) relates to the business initiative and the provision of consultancies, with 50 per cent. support from the Government, which I have already described. Those business initiatives will be organised and delivered entirely by the private sector. We shall provide the funds, but we shall use contractors to organise the schemes. For example, in the case of design we will use the Design Council and in the case of marketing we will use the Institute of Marketing. The consultants used will be private sector consultants, vetted by those bodies for their effectiveness, and we shall merely contribute to the cost of private sector managers helping other private sector managers to improve the quality of performance in their particular business.
Several Hon. Members rose—
Mr. Speaker: Order. I must take account of the business on the Order Paper. I will allow supplementary questions to continue for a further five minutes. That means that Back Benchers will have had a full hour on this matter. Those hon. Members who are not called will certainly be borne in mind on later occasions.
Mr. Dick Douglas: In all honesty can the Minister point to any body of opinion in Scotland that supports the ending of the automatic element of the regional development grant? Can he give us some clear indication as to how the proposals will reverse the current trend of the concentration of small businesses and service industries in the south-east and the midlands?
On the vital matter of research and development, is an inter-relationship between R and D in defence—as such R and D is extremely important—and civil R and D mentioned anywhere in the White Paper? What is the Government's analysis of the £2 billion that has been spent on R and D in defence?
Mr. Clarke: On the hon. Gentleman's first point, I can cite support from the Scottish Council and the Scottish Confederation of British Industry, which is not bad, given that I made my announcement an hour and 10 minutes ago. No doubt other bodies of Scottish opinion will also weigh in in support. I agree that it is important to attract into Scotland, with even more success than has already been achieved, more small business and more service industries to achieve a balanced economy. The Scottish Development Agency has already achieved much by using existing measures. Regional selective assistance will be available to continue that work. The new grants that I have announced will be available to small firms in the development areas and the new business initiatives will help to strengthen the quality of existing businesses. I believe that the package is aimed at the objectives that the hon. Gentleman had in mind.
Mr. Tom Sackville: Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware that business men in my constituency who have found themselves hemmed in on all sides by enterprise zones and development areas will be delighted to hear about the ending of RDG and the fact that large sums of money will not be thrown at firms who do not need that money or simply have the misfortune of being located in Wigan? Is my right hon. and learned Friend also aware that Bolton, receiving hardly any financial aid from his Department, is now experiencing an industrial and commercial boom?
Mr. Clarke: I agree with my hon. Friend that the improved employment prospects for his constituents and people in other parts of the country depend above all else on the continuing performance of the British economy, its growth, our improved productivity and the better quality of our products. Those factors will benefit all the United Kingdom.
In so far as we discriminate between areas, I agree with my hon. Friend that there is no point in giving a grant to a firm that happens to be in Wigan and giving it a subsidy simply because it is investing in Wigan if it is competing against a firm next door in Bolton. We shall continue to give grants to firms that want to go to Wigan and can demonstrate that they need selective assistance to do so. The disparity in the unemployment records between most

167
of the assisted areas and the rest of the United Kingdom is sufficient justification for the continuation of that policy.
Mr. Gerald Bermingham: Does the right hon. and learned Gentleman accept that there is a repeated inconsistency in much of what he has said. Let us take a simple example in the St. Helens area. Recently, the Minister's colleague permitted the Warrington urban development corporation to develop 586 acres of Burtonwood, on the edge of St. Helens. St. Helens has an extremely high unemployment rate and yet it is not given any development grant. Am I to understand that St. Helens will get preferential treatment when it comes begging for loans to relieve our unemployment rate? Perhaps, at the same time, the Minister could give an assurance that whoever mans the Manchester office, with responsibility to his Department, will learn to pay the grants on time rather than deluge the small businesses in St. Helens with considerable numbers of forms. When those forms have been sent back that office still wants more information. Does the Minister accept that that practice needs looking at?
Mr. Clarke: I believe that I am correct in saying that St. Helens is an intermediate area. The abolition of regional development grant will have no adverse consequences on the right projects. As an assisted area it will be eligible for the higher rate of grant under the business initiative. I trust that many firms in St. Helens will take advantage of the various initiatives that we shall be promoting through the medium of television, as well as by other means, during the next few weeks. To some extent, therefore, that preferential treatment for St. Helens will help the local economy.
I take note of the hon. Gentleman's points about bureaucracy in our regional offices. We are extending our regional network and creating more regional offices to be close to the businesses concerned, which should help, but we shall certainly continue to ensure that, as in 99 per cent. of the cases, we operate our schemes with minimum bureaucracy and maximum speed.
Mr. Charles Wardle: Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware that for many years the chorus from a multitude of smaller companies throughout the country has been that they are simply unaware of what the DTI has on offer? Will he therefore step up the communications effort, not only from the centre but from his regional offices, so that more and more companies are aware of the opportunities?
Mr. Clarke: I entirely agree with my hon. Friend. There have been a large number of programmes in the DTI over the years and some have remained a well-kept secret from
168
the outside world. We therefore intend to concentrate heavily on the programmes identified in the enterprise initiative. We shall be marketing them very strongly to ensure that small and medium-sized businesses and their managers are aware of what the Government have on offer. I hope that my hon. Friend's sensible words will be listened to carefully by a few people on the Opposition Front Bench who will no doubt start to complain as soon as we let the public know about these programmes, designed to help them, through television and other media.
Several Hon. Members rose—
Mr. Speaker: Order. I am sorry that it has not been possible to call all those hon. Members—
Mr. Dennis Skinner: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker: Order. I am on my feet. I have noted the names of those hon. Members and I shall give them preference on later occasions. Now I shall take first the point of the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner).
Mr. Skinner: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I have two points. First, you referred to the fairly lengthy period of questioning of the Minister responsible. As you will recall, there was a packed House when we started and many people who were called for questions later disappeared. It is also worth noting that many of there were Privy Councillors who had their little say, then off they went. I think you ought to bear that in mind next time you call people for questions. Some of us stay to the bitter end.
Secondly, there is an important point about responsibility for the tabling of questions arising from this statement. It could well be argued that, if the Minister has removed responsibility away from himself to the Civil Service—
Mr. Speaker: Order. That is not a matter for me. I shall deal with the hon. Gentleman's first question. I note what he has said. I take into consideration all kinds of things when calling hon. Members at Question Time. It is a courtesy of the House that, if one is here for a debate or Question Time, one should remain.
Mr. Skinner: Further to that point of order. Mr. Speaker. You are responsible for the tabling of questions.
Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman is seeking to put a question to the Minister.
Mr. Skinner: No, I am not.
Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman has just said that he wants to put a question to a Minister.

Points of Order
Mr. Eric Forth: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Following yesterday's outrageous events in the Chamber, perhaps you heard on the radio yesterday afternoon the hon. Member for Coventry, North-East (Mr. Hughes) saying that, although he had been suspended from the House, he intended to repeat the incident as soon as possible.
Mr. Speaker: Order. This is strictly hypothetical.
Mr. Harry Ewing: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. My point of order has nothing to do with the statement or today's questions. I shall raise it now. I gave notice to the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland, the hon. Member for Edinburgh, West (Lord James Douglas-Hamilton), that I was going to raise this point of order because it concerns him. In raising this point of order, I want to make it clear that I cast no aspersions whatsoever on his integrity. I have the highest regard and the greatest respect for him, but last night, in his winding-up speech, he declared an interest in a company. I raised the matter briefly on a point of order. The Minister has an interest in a company called Hamilton and Kinneil Estates Ltd. There is no doubt that that company and other similar companies would benefit when the legislation debated yesterday is enacted. It is unprecedented for a Government Minister to be responsible for legislation—
Mr. Speaker: Order. I heard what the hon. Gentleman said last night. It is not a matter for me; it is a matter for the Select Committee on Members' Interests and for the Committee of Selection.
Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours: It is a ministerial rule.
Mr. Speaker: Order. I am not responsible for the ministerial rules. The hon. Gentleman should address his comments to the Select Committee on Members' Interests.
Mr. Tony Marlow: On a different point of order, Mr. Speaker. As I am sure you are aware, you are held in deep respect by the House, but the House is also of the opinion that, on some occasions, you have a very difficult job to do. Many hon. Members, particularly on the Conservative side of the House, would like to help you in the execution of your duties. With that in mind, I am putting to you this point of order, and am seeking your advice.
Yesterday, an hon. Member—I believe that he is an hon. Member of this House, although, like most other hon. Members, I have never clapped eyes on him before —contrived to get himself suspended from the sitting of the House. It seems that there is a growing band of imitators of that venerated eccentric, the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell)—
Mr. Speaker: Order. What can possibly be the point of order for me? The hon. Gentleman started by saying that he would like to be helpful. He is now being most unhelpful.
Mr. Marlow: I am coming to the helpful point. It appears that it is possible for hon. Members to see themselves as martyrs without even having to pay for a box of matches to set the conflagration alight. If hon. Members who were suspended lost their pay—
Mr. Speaker: Order. We cannot go back to what was done yesterday. I say to the hon. Gentleman and to the whole House that I do have a difficult task. It would help me and the whole House enormously if hon. Members stuck strictly to the rules and conventions of this House.
Mr. Tony Benn: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Reverting to the point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Falkirk, East (Mr. Ewing), about a Minister declaring an interest, could I draw your attention to the fact that some time ago I sought permission to place in the Library of the House the rules of procedure for Ministers. They state clearly that Ministers with departmental responsibilities must divest themselves of their financial interest in companies which would benefit from their administration.
At the time, you ruled that it was not in order for that document to be placed in the Library, but I draw the matter to your attention because, with great respect, it is not a matter for the Select Committee on Members' Interests. Under those rules, the Minister quite properly declared an interest. What is at issue is whether the Minister, in having an interest, is in breach of regulations laid down by the Crown through the Prime Minister in respect of the duty of Ministers to Parliament. Would you therefore look back at my earlier submission and consider whether that document, which every Minister receives, ought to be made available to the House so that hon. Members know the rules that govern Ministers in the conduct of financial business in which they have an interest?
Mr. Speaker: Order. I shall certainly do what the right hon. Gentleman said.
Mr. Dennis Skinner: There are nine of them.
Mr. Speaker: Order. I shall certainly do what the right hon. Gentleman has suggested, but I am not responsible for the ministerial rules. They certainly exist and the matter should be taken up with those who are concerned with them.
Mr. Richard Holt: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Just before Christmas, you had the misfortune, in some ways, to apologise to me and I readily accepted that apology. Today I want to apologise to you because I do not feel that it is good for Parliament if hon. Members shout out from sedentary positions, as I did. In that spirit, could you please do something about the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner)?
Mr. Speaker: Order. I thank the hon. Gentleman and can only say that what went on between us was misrepresented in some quarters. Shouted interjections across the Chamber, from whichever side, do not help our proceedings and I hope that, during the remainder of this Session, and of this Parliament, we may continue along the parliamentary lines of good behaviour.
Mr. Dick Douglas: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I welcome what you said in reply to my right hon. Friend the Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn). I crave your assistance because the Committee of Selection will be meeting on the Housing (Scotland) Bill and, due to the lack of Tory Members from Scotland, it is probably inevitable that the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland the hon. Member for Edinburgh, West (Lord James Douglas-Hamilton) will be a member of the

171
Committee, or will be nominated. I ask for your assurance that no selection will be made for the Committee until you have made a pronouncement on this vexatious matter.
Mr. Speaker: That is not a matter for me. I am not responsible for the Committee of Selection, but I am sure that what the hon. Gentleman has just said will have been heard by the Patronage Secretary.
Mr. Bowen Wells rose—
Mr. Speaker: I am sorry I did not call the hon. Member to put a question on the statement.
Mr. Wells: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. May I remind you of your words about the frustration of sitting on the Back Benches of Parliament, particularly in this Parliament, and bring to your attention the fact that the frustration could have been mollified a little if hon. Members representing constituencies which paid regional development grants and other imposts had been permitted to take part in the debate on the trade and industry statement made today?
Mr. Speaker: Again I say to the hon. Member that I know it is a life of great frustration on the Back Benches, but what may be a disappointment one day could perhaps be a happiness on another.
Mr. David Winnick: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Will you accept that an hon. Member who has broken the rules and has paid the penalty by being suspended should nevertheless have his reputation defended? Will you accept that my hon. Friend the Member for Coventry, North-East (Mr. Hughes) yesterday acted from the highest motives? Is it relevant, in view of some of the remarks that have been made, for the point to be understood that my hon. Friend was concerned about an eight-month-old child who desperately requires open heart surgery?
Mr. Speaker: Order. That is unfair. I have no idea what motives are in the minds of Members when they speak. I regret what happened yesterday. I accept, as the hon. Member has just said, that ours is a life of very great frustration, and frustration takes all kinds of forms.
Mr. Tam Dalyell: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Something that you said earlier may be misinterpreted. You said, when my hon. Friend the Member for Falkirk, East (Mr. Ewing) raised the issue of the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland, the hon. Member for Edinburgh, West (Lord James Douglas-Hamilton), serving on the Committee to consider the Housing (Scotland) Bill, that that was not your responsibility. I cast no aspersions, but are you sure that, in that you are responsible for the conduct of the House, you are not concerned as to whether the Committee of Selection chooses people who, very honourably, as in the case of the hon. Member for Edinburgh, West, have declared an interest? Furthermore, should the Crown rules on the conduct of Ministers be made available? The Crown rules have not yet been put in the Library. Should not you, as the Speaker, responsible for the conduct of the House, insist that those rules are put in the Library so that we can know where we are in relation to the hon. Member for Edinburgh, West who is a Government Minister responsible for highly controversial legislation?
Mr. Speaker: Order. I understand the point that has been made. It is not for the Chair to dictate to the Select Committee who should be appointed. I say again that what has been said will undoubtedly have been heard on the Government Front Bench.
Mr. Skinner rose—
Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) is a regular attender here and is called regularly, but it is unfair for him to seek, under the cloak of a point of order, to achieve an answer to a question that he would have wished to put to the Minister. If it is a matter for me, I will deal with it.
Mr. Skinner: If we can clear up the misunderstanding that occurred earlier, Mr. Speaker, I was trying to point out to you that at the end of the day it is a matter for you as to whether parliamentary questions can be laid in the Table Office. That was the point I was trying to establish.
I want to draw to the attention of you and the House that we shall have a new set of rules on grants being made regionally and selectively. If we take a line through the nationalised industries, Ministers are not responsible for day-to-day administration. However, it was possible for any Member of Parliament to put down a question on grants that were obtainable or otherwise in his or her constituency, which would be accepted by the Table Office and the Minister would be responsible. But it is not the same with the day-to-day administration of nationalised industries.
I want to draw to your attention, Mr. Speaker, what may arise out of the changes in the Minister's statement and ask whether it will still be the same. Will hon. Members be able to ask, by a parliamentary question or otherwise, whether some consultancy in their area has obtained a grant or failed to obtain a grant? Will the element of day-to-day administration apply in this case as it does in nationalised industries, or will we have a free run? Many of my hon. Friends fear that the abandonment of the financial guidelines will mean a period of graft, corruption and backhanders.
Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Member will have heard, as the whole House heard, that a Bill will be presented today. I have no knowledge of what is in the Bill, but I have no doubt that the matter raised by the hon. Member will be relevant to the debate on it.

BILL PRESENTED
  REGIONAL DEVELOPMENT GRANTS (TERMINATION)
  Mr. Kenneth Clarke, supported by Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, Mr. Secretary Walker, Mr. Secretary Ridley, Mr. Secretary Rifkind and Mr. Robert Atkins, presented a Bill to preclude the making of grants under Part II of the Industrial Development Act 1982 after 31 March 1988 unless previously applied for and to restrict payment of such grants in certain cases; and for connected purposes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time tomorrow and to be printed. [Bill 78.]

Post Office Exclusive Privilege (Extinction) Bill
5.6 pm
Mrs. Teresa Gorman: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to extinguish the Post Office exclusive privilege of conveying letters.
I am not seeking to privatise the Post Office, although that may be no bad thing. I am not seeking to limit or control it. I merely want to see alternative letter deliveries permitted. The Post Office will not lose a single postman or pillar box — all I am asking for is competition. If confession is good for the soul, competition is good for industry.
We should look at what happened when we removed British Telecom's monopoly on the production of telephones. Five years ago we were all using standard telephones, which we stirred up with a finger, however arthritic the finger or however difficult it was for elderly people. Today we are on the brink of having pocket-size, portable, push-button telephones for everyone. That is the kind of magic which competition achieves in industry. It refreshes the parts which monopolies and Socialism do not reach.
The refreshing quality of the Government is their willingness to tackle some of the antique institutions of our economy. The monuments to Herbert Morrison's ghost — the old nationalised industries — are all being modernised and given a shake up. Surely a privilege which was granted by Charles II in the 1660s should not survive into the 1990s.
It is a happy chance that today Lord Young has chosen to define in his White Paper the new focus of his Department's activities for the rest of the Parliament. Paramount among those is to encourage competition and to tackle restrictive practices. I can think of no better or more appropriate starting point than the Post Office. We all know that it is hopelessly flawed.
We are all fond of our local postman who struggles through all kinds of weather and past the dogs to get the letters to our letter boxes, but behind him or her in the sorting office all the old Micky Mouse restrictive practices are going on — the practices which practically brought Fleet street to its knees. That is why our first-class letter post has deteriorated so badly and why we have to endure the annual Christmas threat of a Post Office strike. I am sure that the Post Office management would welcome competition, because it would help to bring its own unruly labour force into line.
A doubt expressed to me on this subject is that if we allowed competition into delivery of letters, urban Britain would get quick and cheap postal services while rural areas and offshore islands would lose out. Let me assure the House that that theory is completely without foundation. The private sector delivers milk and newspapers to the most remote corners of our country without the need for monopoly milkmen or paperboys. Nor do we need to worry about the cost of delivering those letters. The cost of a bar of chocolate is exactly the same in the Orkneys as it is in Orpington. In other words, when the private sector is in charge it is not worth the trouble to make an exception and to charge more for long distances.
Another doubt that is raised is whether the existing commercial delivery services, such as TNT and Postplan plc, are interested in delivering letters. That really does not
174
matter. I do not know whether they are or not. When there was a strike in the Post Office in 1971, within a few days 562 contractors up and down the country had applied for licences to deliver letters. With even more remarkable speed they formed a network that they called the association of mail services, and they covered the whole country. That happened despite the fact that competition had been suppressed for more than 300 years.
I believe that the Government have the power under the Post Office Act 1969 to suspend the Post Office monopoly or reduce the minimum charge currently imposed by law from £1 to say 5p. No special legislation is needed to do that.
All hon. Members are in the House as a result of a competitive process. Democracy involves alternatives, and all hon. Members nominally support the right of the public to political choice. A monopoly such as the Post Office is an exclusive privilege to supply a service without competition and is therefore undemocratic.
If the Labour party is opposed to deregulation of the post, is it also opposed to competition in other areas where we take competition for granted? Would it approve of a state monopoly in the provision of shoes, trousers, biscuits, cars or other types of service? The Socialists do not dare to reveal their true colours on this issue because, if they did, they would face public ridicule and electoral humiliation. Instead, they seek to defend the remaining pockets of monopoly trades union privilege on the orders of their trades union paymasters. That is the only possible reason for opposing my Bill.
Mr. Dave Nellist: In opposing the Bill, I wish to begin by placing on record my thanks for the help that has been given to me by my comrade, my hon. Friend the Member for Falkirk, East (Mr. Ewing), and to say at the outset that we intend to divide the House. I also thank my right hon. Friend the Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn), a former Postmaster-General, for his assistance.
The Post Office letter monopoly has existed for almost 400 years. Recently it was confirmed in the Telecommunications Act 1984, which set a lower limit of £1 per letter on the charge for private delivery. The operation of a national planned and co-ordinated service with universal rates of delivery has made British postal services the envy of the world. That was admitted by the Institute of Economic Affairs, one of the organisations which briefed the hon. Member for Billericay (Mrs. Gorman). That is a Right-wing body, which recently confirmed that the Post Office comes out well on international comparison.
The Post Office has been profitable for at least 10 years. It has contributed £400 million to the Treasury during that period and its after-tax profits to April 1987 were £131 million, not least because of the work and effort put in by postal workers throughout the country, as a result of which productivity has risen by 20 per cent. over the past five years. That is why the fat cats in the City of London and the so-called learned institutes such as IEA and the Adam Smith Institute are awaiting with glee the pickings from the next round of the Prime Minister's sale of the century, which is being trailed today by the hon. Member for Billericay.
A year ago, the Right-wing Centre for Policy Studies advocated the phased privatisation of the Post Office. Since then, the Post Office has been split and reorganised

175
into four separate businesses, resulting in managers being bigger fish in smaller ponds. The eyes of the Right are firmly on Girobank and the counter services, not only because those businesses are worth £86,000 million, but because the counter services occupy valuable and profitable high street sites in every town and city in the country.
Despite the Prime Minister's election promises that the royal mail was safe from privatisation, the pressure is clearly building up from the Right wing, and it will have to be met by a national campaign by postal workers, supported by other trade unionists inside and outside the industry, to defend our publicly-owned service from the privateers and the vultures of the Right of society.
The Post Office has 100,000 letter boxes, 28,000 vans, and 45,000 delivery staff on our streets every morning. In the few days before Christmas they delivered 100 million items each day, which is more than twice as much as all its competitors deliver in a year. There has been an enormous growth in the past five years in the delivery of mail — about 25 per cent. since 1982. Sir Bryan Nicholson predicts a further 6.5 per cent. growth in this financial year. The fact that there were 91 strikes between April and November last year is the result of continued attacks by management on all aspects of the working conditions of postal staff. In my view, and in the view of other London Members, postal staff were justified in campaigning before Christmas for a reduction in their 43-hour working week; it was done not only for their own benefit but to increase the number of full-time staff, to reduce the number of casual staff and to make a dent in the horrific levels of mass unemployment that we have had in the past nine years under a Tory Government.
The Bill is about lifting the letter monopoly. It would have dramatic effects on rural communities. In my view —I suspect it is the view of most hon. Members—mail is a social service, especially in this era of divided and elderly families. Servicing rural areas, particularly the outlying areas, is inherently unprofitable at 18p a letter. The present inter-city traffic subsidises letters between smaller towns and villages and outlying areas to the tune of £130 million a year which is the cost of subsidisation; that is 6 per cent. of the turnover of the royal mail. If the letter monopoly went, the universal post and stamp would inevitably go. Letters to people living outside cities would cost as much as three or four times the present rate. The 75p letter could become a reality. The Tories prate on about the supposed benefits of competitive pressures. Those pressures would inevitably force the abandonment of door-to-door delivery for all areas and the introduction of collection boxes in small towns, and villages, and on the high streets. The cities would not be immune either. Even in central London, without the Post Office letter monopoly, the level of competition facing the Post Office would mean that it would need the same number of offices and delivery staff to provide its services. But if the volume of traffic went down, the pressure would force charges to rise.
The gainers would be the Rupert Murdochs of this world, with his firm TNT. They wait like vultures for the pickings of big business and the big City trade. The losers would be the millions who do not live in urban areas, and the thousands of postal workers, whose jobs would be put in jeopardy.
The hon. Member for Billericay says that rural postal services would not suffer. But higher postal charges for
176
those living outside the big cities would act like an additional local tax. The Right wing that supports the arguments of the hon. Member for Billericay, such as the Institute of Economic Affairs, argues that people living in rural areas should not expect to have better treatment than those who live in cities. It says that people choose whether to live in rural areas, with long drives to their doors, or to live in accessible urban blocks of flats. Some commuters who live 20 or 30 miles from London may take that decision. I thought until today that the Tory argument was in favour of the preservation of rural communities, and not only because most of their seats are in those areas. The pressure that will be put on those who do not live in rural areas by choice but were born and brought up there will be the responsibility of those who vote for the Bill.
According to The Economist, courier services are springing up in London like weeds. There is Postplan, Link Up, Business Post Ltd, and Metro Associates. In November I drew to the attention of the House the fact that there is now one in Coventry called Coventry Couriers. On 10 November I asked for a statement from the Department of Trade and Industry. I have waited in deafening silence for that statement. Coventry Couriers is a cowboy business which charges 10p an item, breaking the 1981 legal monopoly under which such letters should not be delivered for a charge of less than £1 per item. The firm charges £1 but offers a 90 per cent. discount if people pay their bills straightaway. It is operating under that margin of legality under thus so-called law and order Government.
I have here some letters delivered by that firm. One about immunisation was delivered to my two-year-old daughter, Charlotte, from the area health authority in Coventry on 12 December. I have letters from various local firms such as estate agents and stationers. The franking is designed to look exactly like Post Office franking so as to give a veneer of respectability to the service. That firm is living like a leech off the pressure on the area health authority to cut its costs because of the £1·5 million cut in its budget.
If this is a Government of law and order, what action is the Department of Trade and Industry taking about these illegal operations? Why have there not been prosecutions? Why does the DTI not stop these people breaking the Tories' own rules? The Tories seem to have a pathological hatred of publicly-owned industries. They denigrate them. Then, after privatisation—and it takes a warped imagination to come out with such a phrase—we are all expected to believe that BT is now magic : those were the words of the hon. Member for Billericay.
The Tories feed on the fact that nationalised industries in the last 40 years were saddled with debts and lavish compensation payments. Because all the old managers were still in charge, the miners said in the late '40s, "We are a new broom with old bristles." Nationalised industries may be state owned, but they are still managed by people who are inherently against public ownership. I believe that Sir Bryan Nicholson falls into that category. Such people are not there to defend publicly owned industries and to extend them but to prepare them for privatisation. Those industries have failed in private hands, as we saw in the case of power, coal, steel and transport. Yet we, the taxpayers and the working people, are being saddled with their debts and compensation payments.
There is an alternative. We could restore the image of nationalised industries and give credence to our

177
forefathers and mothers who campaigned in the Labour movement for public ownership by having genuine public ownership. Those who work in the Post Office and in other nationalised industries, together with the trade union movement representing the wider population and the Government, should organise the industries on a tripartite basis to provide not for the pirates and the privateers whom the hon. Member for Billericay represents, but for the whole population, including the rural communities which my hon. Friends and I represent. I urge the House to reject the Bill.
Question put, pursuant to Standing Order No. 19 ( Motions for leave to bring in Bills and nomination of Select Committees at commencement of public business):—
The House divided: Ayes 118, Noes 202.

Division No. 128]

[5.23 pm

AYES

Aitken, Jonathan

Holt, Richard

Alexander, Richard

Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)

Alison, Rt Hon Michael

Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)

Amos, Alan

Janman, Timothy

Arbuthnot, James

Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

Ashby, David

Jones, Robert B (Herts W)

Atkinson, David

King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)

Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)

Knight, Greg (Derby North)

Banks, Robert (Harrogate)

Knowles, Michael

Beaumont-Dark, Anthony

Lawrence, Ivan

Bellingham, Henry

Lloyd, Sir Ian (Havant)

Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)

Lord, Michael

Bevan, David Gilroy

McCrindle, Robert

Blackburn, Dr John G.

Macfarlane, Sir Neil

Body, Sir Richard

MacKay, Andrew (E Berkshire)

Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

McLoughlin, Patrick

Boswell, Tim

McNair-Wilson, M. (Newbury)

Bottomley, Mrs Virginia

Marland, Paul

Boyson, Rt Hon Dr Sir Rhodes

Marshall, John (Hendon S)

Braine, Rt Hon Sir Bernard

Marshall, Michael (Arundel)

Brandon-Bravo, Martin

Meyer, Sir Anthony

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

Miller, Hal

Bruce, Ian (Dorset South)

Mills, Iain

Buck, Sir Antony

Montgomery, Sir Fergus

Budgen, Nicholas

Mudd, David

Burns, Simon

Nelson, Anthony

Carlisle, John, (Luton N)

Paice, James

Chapman, Sydney

Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)

Porter, David (Waveney)

Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)

Powell, William (Corby)

Conway, Derek

Raffan, Keith

Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)

Raison, Rt Hon Timothy

Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

Redwood, John

Curry, David

Rhodes James, Robert

Davis, David (Boothferry)

Riddick, Graham

Day, Stephen

Rost, Peter

Devlin, Tim

Rowe, Andrew

Dickens, Geoffrey

Sackville, Hon Tom

Dicks, Terry

Sayeed, Jonathan

Dover, Den

Shelton, William (Streatham)

Fallon, Michael

Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)

Fookes, Miss Janet

Sims, Roger

Forth, Eric

Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

French, Douglas

Spicer, Sir Jim (Dorset W)

Gale, Roger

Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)

Gardiner, George

Tapsell, Sir Peter

Gill, Christopher

Taylor, Ian (Esher)

Glyn, Dr Alan

Taylor, John M (Solihull)

Gorman, Mrs Teresa

Thorne, Neil

Gow, Ian

Townend, John (Bridlington)

Gower, Sir Raymond

Townsend, Cyril D. (B'heath)

Grant, Sir Anthony (CambsSW)

Tracey, Richard

Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

Vaughan, Sir Gerard

Grylls, Michael

Walker, Bill (T'side North)

Hayes, Jerry

Ward, John

Hicks, Mrs Maureen (Wolv NE)

Watts, John

178

Wheeler, John

Yeo, Tim

Widdecombe, Miss Ann

Wiggin, Jerry

Tellers for the Ayes:

Winterton, Nicholas

Mr. David Wilshire and

Woodcock, Mike

Mr. David Evans.

NOES

Adams, Allen (Paisley N)

Garrett, Ted (Wallsend)

Allen, Graham

Godman, Dr Norman A.

Alton, David

Golding, Mrs Llin

Anderson, Donald

Gordon, Ms Mildred

Archer, Rt Hon Peter

Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)

Armstrong, Ms Hilary

Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

Ashdown, Paddy

Grocott, Bruce

Ashton, Joe

Harman, Ms Harriet

Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)

Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy

Barron, Kevin

Haynes, Frank

Battle, John

Heffer, Eric S.

Beckett, Margaret

Hinchliffe, David

Beggs, Roy

Hogg, N. (C'nauld & Kilsyth)

Benn, Rt Hon Tony

Holland, Stuart

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

Home Robertson, John

Bermingham, Gerald

Hood, James

Bidwell, Sydney

Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

Blair, Tony

Howell, Rt Hon D. (S'heath)

Blunkett, David

Howells, Geraint

Boyes, Roland

Hoyle, Doug

Bradley, Keith

Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

Brown, Nicholas (Newcastle E)

Hughes, Sean (Knowsley S)

Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)

Hughes, Simon (Southwark)

Buchan, Norman

Hume, John

Buckley, George

Illsley, Eric

Caborn, Richard

Ingram, Adam

Callaghan, Jim

Jones, Barry (Alyn & Deeside)

Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

Jones, leuan (Ynys Môn)

Canavan, Dennis

Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S W)

Carlile, Alex (Mont'g)

Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)

Kilfedder, James

Clay, Bob

Kinnock, Rt Hon Neil

Clelland, David

Kirkwood, Archy

Clwyd, Mrs Ann

Lambie, David

Cohen, Harry

Lamond, James

Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

Leadbitter, Ted

Cook, Robin (Livingston)

Leighton, Ron

Corbett, Robin

Lewis, Terry

Cousins, Jim

Litherland, Robert

Cox, Tom

Livingstone, Ken

Crowther, Stan

Lofthouse, Geoffrey

Cryer, Bob

Loyden, Eddie

Cummings, J.

McAllion, John

Cunliffe, Lawrence

McAvoy, Tom

Dalyell, Tam

McCartney, Ian

Darling, Alastair

Macdonald, Calum

Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)

McFall, John

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

McKay, Allen (Penistone)

Dewar, Donald

McKelvey, William

Dixon, Don

McLeish, Henry

Dobson, Frank

McNamara, Kevin

Doran, Frank

McTaggart, Bob

Douglas, Dick

McWilliam, John

Dunnachie, James

Madden, Max

Dunwoody, Hon Mrs Gwyneth

Mahon, Mrs Alice

Eadie, Alexander

Marek, Dr John

Eastham, Ken

Marshall, David (Shettleston)

Evans, John (St Helens N)

Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

Fatchett, Derek

Martin, Michael (Springburn)

Faulds, Andrew

Martlew, Eric

Fearn, Ronald

Maxton, John

Field, Frank (Birkenhead)

Meacher, Michael

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

Meale, Alan

Fisher, Mark

Michael, Alun

Flannery, Martin

Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)

Flynn, Paul

Michie, Mrs Ray (Arg'l & Bute)

Forsythe, Clifford (Antrim S)

Millan, Rt Hon Bruce

Foster, Derek

Mitchell, Austin (G't Grimsby)

Fraser, John

Molyneaux, Rt Hon James

Fyfe, Mrs Maria

Moonie, Dr Lewis

Galbraith, Samuel

Morgan, Rhodri

Galloway, George

Morley, Elliott

Garrett, John (Norwich South)

Mowlam, Mrs Marjorie

179

Mullin, Chris

Spearing, Nigel

Murphy, Paul

Steinberg, Gerald

Nicholson, Miss E. (Devon W)

Stott, Roger

O'Brien, William

Straw, Jack

O'Neill, Martin

Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

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

Patchett, Terry

Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

Pike, Peter

Thomas, Dafydd Elis

Powell, Ray (Ogmore)

Thompson, Jack (Wansbeck)

Primarolo, Ms Dawn

Turner, Dennis

Quin, Ms Joyce

Vaz, Keith

Randall, Stuart

Wall, Pat

Redmond, Martin

Wallace, James

Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn

Waller, Gary

Reid, John

Walley, Ms Joan

Robertson, George

Wareing, Robert N.

Robinson, Geoffrey

Welsh, Michael (Doncaster N)

Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

Wigley, Dafydd

Rowlands, Ted

Williams, Rt Hon A. J.

Ruddock, Ms Joan

Williams, Alan W. (Carm'then)

Sedgemore, Brian

Wilson, Brian

Sheerman, Barry

Winnick, David

Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

Wise, Mrs Audrey

Skinner, Dennis

Worthington, Anthony

Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)

Wray, James

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

Young, David (Bolton SE)

Smith, Rt Hon J. (Monk'ds E)

Snape, Peter

Tellers for the Noes:

Soames, Hon Nicholas

Mr. Harry Ewing and

Soley, Clive

Mr. Dave Nellist.

Question accordingly negatived

Orders or the Day
  Social Security Bill
  As amended (in the Standing Committee), considered.
  Social Security Bill
    New Clause 5

      UP-RATING ORDERS
      '(1) It is hereby declared that the orders to which this section applies were validly made and that the Secretary of State is under no duty to revoke them.
      (2) The orders to which this section applies are—

      (a) the Social Security Benefits Up-rating (No. 2) Order 1987;

      (b) the Occupational Pensions (Revaluation) Order 1987.'—[Mr. Scott.]

      Brought up, and read the First time.
      5.34 pm
      The Minister for Social Security and the Disabled (Mr. Nicholas Scott): I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harold Walker): With this it will be convenient to consider Government amendments Nos. 19 to 21.
      Mr. Scott: The amendments are consequential on the new clause.
      The House knows that the error in the calculation of the retail price index has had an effect on the levels of social security benefits. Indeed, in the statement that I made to the House on 18 December I set out our plans for special payments and we are pressing ahead with those arrangements. I made clear our full recognition of our moral obligation in the matter and that we were doing something about it, but the House has recognised that we were not bound legally to make these payments, and that we acted in good faith in basing the benefit rates of payment on the RPI as published.
      Nevertheless, we believe that it is desirable to introduce an amendment to the Bill to put beyond doubt the validity of the levels set out in the uprating order which will come into effect in April. That will be the effect of the new clause, and it is because we want to do it at the earliest opportunity that we are introducing it on Report.
      Similar considerations apply to the Occupational Pensions (Revaluation) Order, which likewise requires an increase in line with prices.
      I believe that the reasons for the new clause are well understood and I commend it to the House.
      Question put and agreed to.
      Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

    New Clause 1

      INDEXING OF CHILD BENEFIT
      `In section 63(3) of the Social Security Act 1986, for "or (d)" there shall be substituted", (d) or (f)".'—[Mr. Robin Cook.]
      Brought up, and read the First time.
      Mr. Robin Cook: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to consider new clause 4—Uprating of Child Benefit—

      181
      'In paragraph (b) of subsection (3) of Section 63 of the Social Security Act 1986 leave out :—
      "(c)or (d) above" and insert :—
      "(c), (d) or, in any Order having effect on or after 10th April 1989, (f), (child benefit), above.".'.
      Mr. Cook: The effect of the new clause may not be immediately apparent, but I am advised that it will correctly give effect to our intention, which is to include child benefit among those benefits which are automatically index-linked under the 1986 Act and to prevent it from suffering the fate of benefits that are not automatically index-linked, such as the death grant, which was allowed to wither until it was of such insignificance that the Government were able to move in and kill it off.
      The hon. Member for Kensington (Sir B. Rhys Williams) has tabled the similar new clause 4. I note that the hon. Gentleman has been heavily briefing the press that our new clause would take immediate effect whereas his would not take effect until next year. I would not be unhappy if my new clause had the effect of forcing an increase in child benefit this April, but I would be somewhat surprised if it had that effect since we have already passed the Up-rating (No. 2) Order, which gives effect to increases this April. I rather suspect that the effect of the hon. Gentleman's new clause and mine would be identical, although the wording may be different.
      For the avoidance of doubt, I assure the hon. Gentleman that I shall be voting for both new clauses and, as they both achieve identical objectives, it would be strange to differentiate between them. I appreciate that some Conservative Members may, for political reasons, wish to vote for his new clause rather than mine. I only urge them all to agree to vote for the same one, to maintain voting strength.
      Sir Brandon Rhys Williams: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for allowing me to interrupt him so early in his speech. I felt that it might help the House if I were to explain. I was advised that if the remaining stages of this Bill were completed quickly and his new clause were adopted, it would be possible for the uprating called for to be implemented in time for the coming April. So there would be a difference in meaning between my new clause 4 and his new clause I, in the unlikely event that the Bill completed all its stages within, say, the next three or four weeks.
      Mr. Cook: I should regard such an outcome as delightful, but perhaps I could put it to the Minister that we are willing to compromise on this point and if that is what would oblige him to resist our new clause, I am willing to come or go with him about April.
      Our new clause is prompted by the recent history of child benefit which twice in the past three years has not been uprated in line with inflation. As a result, mothers in Britain now lose £30 per child per year that they would have received had the benefit been uprated to its value in 1979. The sum of £30 is significant to a mother operating on a tight budget; it is the equivalent of a good winter coat or two new pairs of shoes. It would be sufficient to keep a child well shod throughout the year.
      If that is not bad enough, it is clear that the new Secretary of State for Social Services has what can only be described as a vigorous distaste for child benefit which he has hinted at on a number of occasions. In reply to a
      182
      number of my hon. Friends in November, he assured them that child benefit under this Government would be kept "under constant review", which many people outside the House and some Opposition Members not unreasonably interpreted as meaning that child benefit would be under constant threat.
      That statement has been made by the Government since the election. It contrasts markedly with statements made by the Conservative party at election time. It would be possible to fill a slim dictionary of quotations with expressions of support for child benefit by Conservative Members around polling day. Those quotations vary from the statement by the Prime Minister in 1979, when she said that the Conservatives were impatient to implement the child benefit system, to the statement by the current Chief Secretary to the Treasury when he was the Minister of State, Department of Health and Social Security and said during the last general election that child benefit would continue as a non-means-tested universal payment, paid to the mother and tax-free. He said that there ought to be no question about that.
      It is my objective to maximise cross-party support for child benefit. I will, therefore, spare the House my outrage about that commitment being consigned to whatever oubliette Central Office maintains for manifesto commitments. Instead, I want to undertake the perhaps perverse duty for an Opposition Member of urging Conservative Members to recognise that their manifesto was correct and to stick with it.
      I begin that task by reminding those Members that child benefit replaced a tax allowance. It may help them to like child benefit if they think of it as a tax allowance. Had it remained a tax allowance, it would almost certainly have done better under this Government than it has as a cash benefit. Personal tax allowances have gone up under this Government by some 15 per cent. By comparison, child benefit has gone down by 3 per cent. That has the strikingly odd result that the tax allowance to a married man, which is supposed to assist him with the cost of maintaining a wife, has increased in real value while the cash benefit offered to him towards the cost of maintaining his children has gone down.
      5.45 pm
      Most critics of child benefit persist in misunderstanding it. They treat it solely as a means of helping the poor. But the main function of child benefit is to redistribute cash not from the rich to the poor, but from the childless to families with children, and that is an objective for which nearly every civilised country has some mechanism. Not only do they all provide help with the cost of children, but, overwhelmingly, the countries of western Europe provide more help than we do.
      The income figures for households with children show how right those countries are. Two thirds of households with children have an average income below the national average; two thirds of households without children have an average income above the national average. Those figures demonstrate what we all know from our own experience, which is that the period of raising children is a period of double pressure, when households face a lower income and at the same time higher costs.
      That brings me to the second reason why I believe that Conservative Members should wish to maintain the real value of child benefit. I note that the buzz word of this Administration in social security is "targeting". If

      183
      targeting is the criterion by which we are to judge child benefit, we are obliged to award it an alpha plus. If the objective is to help with the costs of children, child benefit hits 100 per cent. of its targets. Its take-up is absolute; it is simple; it is easy to understand; and it is well known. It is a universal benefit and there is, therefore, no stigma in claiming it. Collecting it can be done with dignity because it is part of one entitlement as a citizen.
      Better still, the benefit goes to the mother and, in practice, it is the mother who still, in nine cases out of ten, pays for the grocery basket. It is interesting that a survey by the Child Poverty Action Group discovered that 95 per cent. of mothers claiming child benefit said that they at least sometimes used that benefit to pay for children's clothing. One is six said that they always used it to pay for clothing. It is clear that those mothers were using child benefit as the means by which they ensured that their children were decently clad. For women unable to work because they have young children, child benefit provides the only income that they can call their own and on which they can depend weekly.
      This is one of the occasions when the decision of the House may be affected by the lopsided male bias in our representation in the Chamber. If the composition of the Chamber remotely approached a fair representation of the proportion of women in our society, I do not believe that there would be a hope of our tolerating the freezing of child benefit.
      So far, I have argued that it is important to maintain child benefit because it redistributes income from the childless to families with children and because, within households with children, it redistributes spending power from the male to the mother. But it is also important in helping families out of the poverty trap, and it may be worth recalling that the benefit was brought in to replace a tax allowance precisely because a cash benefit gives greater help to low-income families who may often be too poor to pay tax. Even today, 1·3 million families in receipt of child benefit pay no income tax. For them, the introduction of child benefit was a progressive measure which has given them help that they would otherwise not have received.
      There is another subsidiary role of child benefit in helping families out of poverty. The aspect that makes it possible to help families out of poverty is precisely that feature which its critics most object to. It is a flat-rate benefit which is not means-tested and so it does not penalise the families whose father betters himself by getting that bit extra in income. The Government appear determined to push more and more families on to means-tested benefits. The decision to freeze child benefit last November makes another 15,000 households liable to means-tested benfits by leaving them with an income below the entitlement level of means-tested benefits.
      The problem is not only that we are ending up with more households on means-tested benefits, but that, at the same time, the Government are sharply accelerating the rate at which those means-tested benefits taper off. Thus, housing benefit, as from next April, will taper off at the rate of 85p for every additional pound in net income. The new family credit will taper off at 70p for every additional pound in income. Many families, as a result, will end up with a marginal rate of taxation of 90 per cent. — a higher rate than is paid by the wealthiest family in the land, but which on this occasion will he met by some of the poorest households in the land.
      184
      Child benefit is one of the last surviving ways of softening that ferocious marginal rate of taxation, and it gives families an incentive to struggle out of the poverty trap. Its value is dramatically illustrated if we consider a family of four in which both parents are out of work. While child benefit exists, one of those parents needs to obtain a job with a wage of only £130 a week to leave the family 10 per cent. better off than they are while that parent is unemployed. If child benefit were not there, the parent would need to land a job paying £190 a week to achieve the same effect. That is a difference of £60. I appreciate that there is at present no proposal to remove child benefit in its entirety, but the longer that child benefit is frozen, the higher the parent must jump in starting wages to escape the poverty trap.
      That is an argument which weighs with Opposition Members. I am bound to say, however, that it ought to weigh all the more heavily with Conservative Members who belong to a party which readily talks the language of incentives, independence and self-reliance. If they are sincere in seeking to achieve a society that represents those values, they ought to cherish child benefit, rather than allowing its value to decline in relation to means-tested benefits.
      Most hon. Members will have received a briefing from the organisation "Save Child Benefit", and I am sure that they have diligently read the text of that memorandum. However, in case they omitted to do so, I invite them to look at the last page, which lists the 50 members of "Save Child Benefit". It is an exalted collection of members of the poverty lobby and the women's movement. and includes some remarkable establishment names, such as the Church of England Children's Society, the Mothers Union, the National Federation of Women's Institutes, the Royal Scottish Society for Prevention of Cruelty to Children and the Salvation Army.
      Those are not front organisations for the Labour movement. I am not aware that we are affiliated to the Mothers Union, or that it is affiliated to our constituency parties. That is not the radical end, the extremist fringe of the feminist movement, but the establishment in the women's movement. It is, in a sense, rooted in the backyards of Conservative Members, and my new clause is rooted in their own history.
      Leafing through past debates on the issue which stretch back for more than a decade, I was delighted to note that, when child benefit was introduced in 1975, the Conservative party tabled art amendment to the Bill seeking to provide for the regular indexing of child benefit with inflation. Indeed, the amendment was moved by the Minister of Trade and Industry, who has just been announcing to the House the abolition of a large part of his Department's function. His amendment was more militant than mine: it attempted to provide for indexation of child benefit every six months, and I cheerfully concede to the Minister that that goes rather further than I am prepared to go.
      My new clause is more modest and moderate, and seeks only an annual uprating of the value of child benefit. However, the case for that uprating is made all the stronger because, since 1975, we have experienced the effect of the Rooker-Wise amendment to the Finance Bill of 1977, which provided for annual uprating of tax thresholds. Now, nearly every other significant long-term national insurance benefit is uprated annually, as are all

      185
      the tax thresholds. Child benefit, however, is conspicuously subject to the vagaries of the Government and what the current Secretary of State for Social Services can persuade the Chancellor of the Exchequer to disgorge.
      There is another instructive parallel with the Rooker-Wise amendment. The amendment was carried by support from Government Back Benchers who voted with the Opposition. Together, Opposition and Government Back Benchers were able to force the Government of the day to do what was right. If all those who have expressed support in the past for the uprating of child benefit, and all Conservative Members who are known to have made strong statements of support for it retention, were to vote with us tonight, we should achieve the same historic victory. All that is required is for them to show the same courage and join us in the Lobbies to protect and give a guaranteed future to the one benefit that mothers can claim as their own.
      Sir Brandon Rhys Williams: I am glad to have the opportunity to commend my new clause 4 to the House. I trust that my right hon. and hon. Friends will shortly make known that they have decided to accept it, because there are many very good reasons for their doing so, many of which have been put to the House ably and, in my opinion, convincingly by the hon. Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook), who has just spoken for the Opposition.
      As the hon. Gentleman pointed out, the difficulty in which the House finds itself is really because of the confused history of child benefits, which many people have forgotten. They have forgotten that such benefits emanated from the old child tax allowances. It is only some 10 years since the old tax allowance for children was done away with, and child benefit was put in its stead. But that has already been forgotten, so people do not realise that their child benefit is the way in which the Government reduce the burden of taxation for families.
      Equally, of course, child benefits grew out of the family allowances that were brought in in 1945, with all-party agreement. Family allowances, because they were not taxed and did not arise from contributions, did not become part of the national insurance system either. They were a very popular benefit from the start, always very cheap to administer and always with a very high take-up. That remains the case, although the name has now been changed to child benefit. However, because they have never quite belonged in any of the major parts of the redistribution of income system, nobody quite understands where child benefits now fit into the general structure of welfare and family income support.
      There are some people — I do not personally think that there are very many, but I know that there are some in this House, and there may be a certain number outside — who feel embarrassed about claiming their child benefit, because they have forgotten the history, and do not understand where the money is coming from and why they should be entitled to it. They feel that it is money for nothing, and that they have not done anything to deserve it. I personally think that mothers deserve credit for the work that they undertake on behalf of the nation, and that we should not be stingy with mothers who have children to support.
      But there is also a kind of snobbery, which is unattractive, in the mouths of people who say that they do
      186
      not need child benefit. They are implying that there are two nations, and that they belong to the superior half of the country which is able to look after itself and its family, and does not need help from anyone. They concede, of course, that there is also the subsidiary sub-culture of people who cannot manage and have to be given help, although it is no doubt humiliating for them.
      I absolutely reject that type of approach. I think that it is quite wrong for the Conservative party or any member of it to slip into that attitude. The people who feel like that would accept a tax cut because they would feel that in some way it was their own money coming back to them. Equally, they would draw their national insurance pensions because they would not feel ashamed to draw something to which they felt that they had contributed and to which they were therefore entitled. However, they do not quite understand child benefit, so they like to make it very clear that they are embarrassed by it and that they do not need it.
      6 pm
      There is also, I am afraid, still a degree of unspoken resentment because of the fact that the child benefit goes direct to the mother. The men probably do not like to complain outright that that is the root of their objection; but we recall the difficulties that the Labour party had 10 years ago when it was decided that the tax allowances, which of course were for the benefit of the wage earner, should be done away with and that the money should be made good instead to the same family, but in the form of a direct credit to the mother. There was a problem within the Labour party over the "wallet to handbag" dispute. Now, unfortunately, we find that Conservatives are divided on similar lines where they see that the money is being transferred from the taxpayer to his wife.
      I think that we can rise above those misunderstandings. This debate gives us the opportunity to look at the issues. I am grateful to those hon. Members who have supported new clause 4. I trust that the Department of Health and Social Security has taken note of all the arguments that we have been advancing in recent weeks. Some people think that it would be better just to pay child benefits on proof of need because that would target the benefits to the people who really need help. That indeed is what is happening in the Bill, where we are moving from the unpopular family income supplement to the far preferable — but, I think, still defective — family credit. I will explain why I do not think that that form of targeting is the right form of targeting.
      In 1977 the number of supplementary benefit claimants was under 3 million. At the end of 1987. the number of claimants had risen to more than 5 million. That is a significant social change and a significant increase in the number of people obliged to go to the DHSS in order to have enough money to maintain themselves and their families above the poverty line. If we look more widely than the claimants and take in the whole household, the numbers are much more serious and indeed alarming. Looking at the total number of people in dependency on means-tested benefits of one kind or another in 1983, including supplementary benefit, housing benefits and the family income supplement, the number was estimated at 14 million. That is a serious figure. By 1987, it had gone up to 16 million.
      But worse than that, from a parliamentary answer that I received in the past few weeks, it seems that there are

      187
      another 4 million or 6 million people who are entitled to means-tested benefit, but who do not claim it either because they do not understand that they are entitled or because they are too proud to claim—which is very often the reason. It is particularly important not to drive those people down, as they see it, to become second-rate citizens. That surely should be a Conservative principle. Indeed, I know that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Services has embraced the idea of helping people out of dependency. He made it known that that was one of his particular targets when he took over the job. Yet he is going about it in precisely the wrong way.
      I think that we ought not to be increasing the numbers. Quite apart from the social factors, looking at the workings of the economy, it is wrong to put people in a position where they are not supposed to be working because they are in receipt of benefit. What we do by that is to add to the numbers of people who are in the inert sector of the economy and have to be supported by other people's efforts rather than belonging to the dynamic sector where people work and save to make the economy work. It is bad economics and bad social policy to add to the number of people on means-tested benefits.
      Let us suppose that child benefit continues to diminish in real value as it is diminishing as a result of the decision that the Department has announced for the current year. That is a drop of about 4 per cent. in the real value. That would mean that there would be still more people on the means test. Simultaneously, we are proposing to add substantially to the number of people on the means test by the introduction of the community charge. I do not want to debate the merits of that measure, but we have recognised that the community charge will be more than people who earn very low incomes or who have no incomes at all can pay. They will be shovelled on to the means test as well. If more than 20 million are already entitled and we are to add a whole lot more, targeting on the basis of the means test has got to stop—otherwise we will have more have-nots in the country than haves. The dynamics of the economy will go quite wrong.
      The decision not to uprate the child benefit this year, with only a 4 per cent. difference—I agree that that is not a great figure — is important. From another parliamentary answer, I learned that 15,000 more families with 30,000 dependent children are expected to become entitled to income-related benefits. We do not know exactly what number that means, but it must be at least another 50,000 people who will be thrown on to the heap by the Department's decision just on this matter of uprating child benefit in this one year.
      I think that it was a step in the wrong direction for several reasons. Perhaps there is something that will appeal to Conservative Members. In the Conservative manifesto, they will see that we said:
      "Child benefit will continue to be paid as now."
      It is possible to read into that a double meaning, I suppose. If people were relying on its real value continuing in the light of that commitment, it has already been proved that they read it wrong. It has already ceased to be true that child benefit will continue to be paid as it was at the time of the general election. It has fallen to what it was, less 4 per cent. I do not think that my right hon. Friends should invite their supporters on the Conservative Benches to play a trick such as that on 10,000 mothers in every average-sized parliamentary constituency. More than 6·5 million
      188
      mothers draw this benefit and many will have noted what was said about child benefit at the time of the election, because they value it.
      We are being invited now to play a trick on those mothers and say, "Aha, you have got it wrong. What that sentence really meant was that it would remain at the same arithmetical figure, regardless of its real value." If one is in business in the private sector, one cannot afford to play tricks like that on one's customers, or one will not stay in business for long. I do not believe that we should treat 6·5 million mothers in that way either. That is my particular point of view.
      There is a fundamental reason for giving special help to families. I do not want to take up too much time, particularly as we were late starting on the debate. However, this is an important opportunity to go over the ground, and many people are involved in what the House is going to decide about this matter.
      A breadwinner with children and a single person without dependants get the same rate for the job from their work. The employer is not called on, and cannot be expected, to differentiate between the needs of a single person and the needs of a breadwinner with a number of dependants. The employer cannot make that difference, but the tax collector can. That was how it was decided as long ago as the end of the 18th century, when the income tax system was brought in. William Pitt decided that someone with children to support should be enabled to claim a child allowance so that he did not pay as much tax as someone with only a wife and himself, or himself alone, to support.
      That principle was the right one. It was in fact discontinued, I believe, for a time during the 19th century and reinstated again in the tax system early in the 20th century. I think that we should stick to it, but of course not everyone is in the range of tax liability.
      Mr. John Greenway: Will my hon. Friend accept that there are many single people on low incomes paying tax and that if we continue with his proposition they will be contributing through the tax system to pay increased child benefit to couples with substantial incomes who do not need them? Surely it is better for the resources available to be targeted on the growing number of people to whom my hon. Friend has referred. My hon. Friend has elucidated that the number is growing; surely that is evidence that the Government's policy is working, not evidence that we should be going in the opposite direction.
      Sir Brandon Rhys Williams: I do not think we can say that the Government's policy of freeing people from dependency is working. There has been a significant rise in the number of people who are dependent on means-tested benefit. More than that, single people who have to pay tax should recognise that their tax goes into the system and that part of the benefit goes to married couples with children. But someone brought up those single people. They should be willing to contribute to bringing up the next generation in their turn, even though they are riot married and do not have children of their own. We belong to a continuing society and those who have had the benefit of being brought up in Britain must recognise that they have a duty to those who will be brought up in Britain in future.
      Mr. Frank Field: Is not another answer by the hon. Member for Kensington (Sir B. Rhys Williams)

      189
      to his hon. Friend the Member for Ryedale (Mr. Greenway) that he is mistaking where we should be making cuts so that we can reduce the rate of taxation? We should not be deploying that argument. We should not be comparing a low-waged single person with a well-off family. We should be looking at the whole range of tax allowances and phasing them out so that we can have tax rates of something like 13p in the pound. That would meet the point about increasing child benefit.
      Sir Brandon Rhys Williams: We should sit in the House until midnight if I were to start again on the campaign for tax credit. We may touch on it on another occasion; I have not changed my views about it.
      People who are not in the tax system cannot get a differentiation in their spending power because they have family responsibilities. As long ago as the end of the 18th century that problem was also recognised. It is nothing new. The magistrates in Speenhamland decided that they would use parish funds to subsidise poor families with children. Many people have laughed at them, and, because of the effect of its intervention in the labour market, the system had to be wound up.
      The repeal of the Corn Laws in 1846 was a measure primarily to help large families, because they were the people who were most affected by the high prices of food. Free public education was established in 1870, with a similar effect. The 20th century saw the beginning of the national insurance system for dependants. In the 1940s the National Health Service was set up, which was to be of more use to a large family group than to a smaller one. In 1945 family allowances were introduced, and in the 1970s there was the family income supplement. Now, in 1988, we are embarking on family credit.
      We recognise the value of all those measures, because we know that nutritional standards, a good environment, reasonable clothing and stable and secure family life are very important in the upbringing of the citizens of the next generation. Wherever the money comes from, the income of families with children should not be reduced. I regret the fact that this 4 per cent. reduction is on the programme for the coming year.
      Is all this means testing the right way to help? More than half the mothers who claim child benefit are in families which pay more tax than the value of their benefits. Since we have dismantled child tax allowances, bringing that system back would be an administrative nightmare and would complicate PAYE for employers in a way that we cannot contemplate. The same applies to the ridiculous suggestion of bringing child benefit back into the tax system. That would be a clear example of churning and double counting. It is not a helpful suggestion.
      For taxpayers, child benefit is their tax cut. If taxes are to be reduced this year, let them be targeted on families this time, by increasing child benefit rather than by releasing the money preferentially to single people, as happened in 1987. By his welcome and well-received tax cut of 2 per cent., the Chancellor actually gave more benefit to single people than to married couples, and married couples with children did not receive any particular benefit at all in recognition of their family responsibilities. That was wrong. This year, if tax cuts are again in the pipeline—as we are told—I trust that the Chancellor this time will think seriously about increasing
      190
      the benefit to families and targeting benefit on families preferentially by increasing child benefits. That would be the right way.
      What is to be done for people on low incomes who pay little tax or no tax at all? Do we carry on forcing them down into dependency and leaving them to claim family credit, or do we try to find a way to give them a form of help which they can see to be their own money as of right? That is really what the Conservative party should be seeking to do. I trust that my right hon. and hon. Friends will take that obligation seriously and will realise that they have a golden opportunity to reform the system and must not waste time. People should receive money in income support which they will not lose if they work or if they save to better themselves.
      Among the 4 to 6 million non-claimants are many people in Kensington whom I know and whom I honour because of their determination to keep themselves away from the need to apply for means-tested benefit. We should be encouraging that spirit rather than making it more and more difficult for such people.
      6.15 pm
      The right answer is to rescue the national insurance principle and add to the system the benefit for children. Pensioners accept their national insurance pension without any humiliation, but people also spend a number of years unable to work at the start of life. That period should also be a national insurance responsibility.
      I agree with Winston Churchill, who said that the national insurance principle should provide a floor through which no one can fall but above which they can rise as high as they are able. We should embrace that principle and put it into effect. Everyone who is liable to pay tax during their working years should be accepted as a member of the national insurance fund. Let them claim national insurance during the years of inability to support themselves over the whole cycle of life, in childhood as well as in retirement. Insured citizens in Britain should be held above poverty all through life—at the start of life just as much as when they come to retirement and are no longer able to support themselves because of old age. Under the insurance principle, they would pay their contributions during middle life.
      We now have a system of earnings-related contributions and flat-rate benefits that was introduced by the Conservative party — by my noble Friend Lord Joseph, in 1972. It was the right answer. His initiative put the national insurance fund on a proper and sound basis, but it has not been followed up. This is the opportunity to do so. I ask my hon. Friend the Minister who is to reply to the debate to say whether the Government will give an undertaking to review the national insurance fund, its finances, its operations and its commitments, with particular reference to family income support. That is plainly the way to liberate millions from dependency and give them back their self-respect.
      Mr. Frank Field: I shall be brief, partly because the first two speeches have covered the ground that needs to be covered. However, I shall pick up one point on which my hon. Friend the Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook) ended his speech. He very ably drew one lesson from the experience of the Labour Government in 1975 by pointing out how important it was for Conservative Members to act on their own conscience. Indeed, thinking back to the

      191
      1974–76 Government, most hon. Members would be hard-pressed to remember who was in that Government, but most hon. Members can remember the Lawson-RookerWise amendment. It seems that the important moral that my hon. Friend was drawing, although he did not trouble to underline it, was that if Governments are to be effective, it is crucial that they should have independent Back Benchers behind them. We have one hon. Member in her place today, who, rightly, is remembered from that Parliament because she voted as she believed it was important to vote. When one is in opposition it is not always that easy to vote against the Whip. It must be many many times more difficult to vote against the Whip in government. During that period of the Labour Government two of my hon. Friends stood out—my hon. Friend the Member for Preston (Mrs. Wise), whose constituency was then Coventry, South-West, and my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Perry Barr (Mr. Rooker).
      I hope that tonight Conservative Members will act with similar courage. Time is often taken up, particularly by people in the Press Gallery, debating who will be the next on the Front Bench and who will be moved sideways or down, and that also commands a lot of interest among Members. But that is of momentary importance compared with influencing the course of Government. I am sad to say that the previous Labour Government was usually influenced when Back Benchers rather than Whips won control. I hope in the near future to serve as a Back Bencher when my hon. Friend the Member for Livingston is Secretary of State. I shall do my best to organise votes against him on those matters when, although his heart will be with us, the whipping system will be against us.
      In some ways, the debate is simple, but it also has a complexity. When the Secretary of State made his uprating statement, perhaps because he was new in the job, he presented it as though there were clear choices. Today's debate shows that we do not have clear choices. The Government have a number of objectives, some of which can clash.
      Some of the objectives touched upon by the hon. Member for Kensington (Sir B. Rhys Williams) are central to the Government's philosophy. It is said that the Government support the family. The hon. Gentleman drew attention to the importance of this benefit going to women as of right. That objective, which the Tory party holds high, is one side of the equation of competing objectives.
      The Government also believe in tax equity—that at any one time a balance must be struck between what people contribute, given their different incomes and family responsibilities. It has been the Government's prejudice, with which I agree, that wherever there is doubt one should decide in favour of taxpayers with children and against those without such a responsibility.
      That has been the rhetoric, but the sad fact is that the record of Budgets since 1979 shows that, despite what they say, the Government have weighted the tax system in favour of single people and childless couples and against those with children. Again, this is a chance for Tory Back Benchers to assert principles on which many of them have been elected during the past three years.
      The hon. Member for Ryedale (Mr. Greenway) made a valid point in an intervention when he asked how we can defend the payment of child benefit to our constituents on £20,000 a year when many of our constituents pay tax on
      192
      low incomes and are single. C'an we defend such a transfer from single people on low incomes to those with children on higher incomes?
      I was not commending the ideas of the hon. Member for Kensington on tax credit when I intervened. I was proposing a much simpler scheme. Given that at any one time the Chancellor has forgone taxing 50 per cent. of personal income—the present cost of all the tax benefits and concessions that we give — if we are concerned about meeting the tax equity point for people on low incomes, we should be looking at ways of phasing out those tax benefits so that we can massively reduce the rate of tax. That is the right course to take to meet the point made by the hon. Member for Ryedale. A person on a low income would not then be making such a contribution. That is the proper way to deal with the matter. It is not proper to take away from people with children in order to meet the point. The tax equity point is on the same side of the equation when Government Back Benchers think about this issue.
      Mr. John Greenway: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his comments and for the fact that my point has been taken on board. However, does he accept that when the House divides later this evening, it will do so against the background of the existing tax system and not what might be produced at some future date'?
      Mr. Field: Just as my hon. Friends the Members for Perry Barr and for Preston could vote only on the issue before them and made a big difference, so tonight we can vote only on the amendment that we are debating. Perhaps when we discuss the Budget we can return to the matter and be more ambitious in our targets.
      Another issue which clearly comes down on one side is the Government's wish to tackle poverty. Here there is a choice between a benefit that we know everybody will pick up, including those who are poor, and a targeted benefit that the Government are now proudly claiming that 85 per cent. will take up, although many Conservative Members must know that if over 60 per cent. do so they will be doing well.
      There is a real trade-off there on which Conservative Members can make a decision. Which is the best way to advance? There is the certainty of making sure that all families benefit, although some would argue that some families do not need the money —I hope that I have dealt with that argument—or a targeted approach, as a result of which even on the Government's estimate—they are not worried at the moment because they do not have to face questions about what is happening because the scheme is not in existence—some poor families will not pick up the benefit to which they are entitled. There we see the beginning of the trade-off which shows that the issue is not as simple as the Secretary of State suggested when introducing his uprating statement.
      The last point, which I hope will bring hon. Members down firmly in favour of the new clause, is the Government's wish to increase people's independence. If we in the House were serious about that, we would be looking at changes in our tax system which would give us the money, not to increase child benefit by 4 per cent:.—the small amount over which we are squabbling tonight — but by a substantial amount. If we could find the revenue to double the real value of child benefit, we would transform the welfare role. Most single mothers would

      193
      throw their books in. The opportunity to build on a part-time income and to conduct their lives without officials poking their sticky fingers into their private lives is one at which most people would jump.
      We are talking about whether we should move to an incentive-based society in which all can participate, or whether we should continue in an incentive-based society which excludes that growing under-class which all hon. Members are witnessing in their constituencies, whether we represent prosperous or less prosperous areas.
      This is not a clear issue with everything in favour of the argument on one side and everything opposing it on the other. When any political decision is made, a balance must be struck, but I hope that the three speeches that have been made so far tonight have shown overwhelmingly what that balance must be. I hope that tonight Conservative Members will have the courage to make an advance such as we saw in 1975 when, in a small but important way, we began to change our tax system. That change came about as a result of the courage of Back Benchers to take on their Government and I wish hon. Members such success tonight.
      Mr. Timothy Raison: Those hon. Members who have already spoken have carefully set out a compelling case. Reference has already been made to the words in last year's Conservative manifesto:
      "Child benefit will continue to be paid as now, and direct to the mother."
      As has been said, it is possible to interpret those words as meaning merely that child benefit will go on. Nevertheless, the vast bulk of the population who thought about the matter would have assumed that the system was to go on as it is at present ; in other words, that uprating would continue to be built into it. To back away from that would be to adopt a weasly interpretation of those words in the manifesto.
      Hon. Members have set out clearly the argument in favour of continuing uprating and the arguments in favour of child benefit as a mechanism. There is not much that I can add to that, but I want briefly to go over the important points.
      One important point, as has been said already, is that when child benefit was introduced in 1977 it replaced the child tax and family allowances with a universal benefit. The aim was to extend the child tax allowance to all children. That aim was right. It was accepted at the time and has been accepted since.
      As the House knows, child tax allowance has long been a part of our history. It goes back to the days of William Pitt in 1796. Pitt said:
      "Let us make relief in cases where there are a number of children a matter of right and a matter of honour."
      It runs against that philosophy not to uprate child benefit.
      6.30 pm
      We accept the notion that tax allowances should increase in line with inflation which, as the House has heard, is exactly what has been happening. Tax allowances have risen with inflation thanks to the Rooker-Wise-Lawson amendment and they will continue to do so. If we do not allow child benefit to increase with inflation, we shall be negating part of the essence of the reform introduced in 1977. In a sense, it was a deal. The two old benefits—child tax allowance and family allowance —
      194
      went and child benefit was introduced in their place. It was clearly understood that child benefit would rise in the same way as tax allowances had risen. Since then, we have witnessed the institutionalisation and legalisation of the fact that tax allowances rise with inflation. To let child benefit stand still is to backtrack on history. My hon. Friend the Member for Ryedale (Mr. Greenway) made a relevant point when he asked why poorish taxpayers' money should go to those who are palpably better off. It is because of the history of the arrangements as well as because of the general advantages of child benefit that it is right to continue with the uprating process that has become a familiar part of the system over the past decade.
      We know the other arguments in favour of child benefit. It is a secure and uncontested source of help and regular income to those who have to bear the extra cost of bringing up children. William Pitt recognised that extra cost, which is just as real today as it was then. Child benefit implies a regular commitment to the family; surely our party has always stood for trying to help the family and those with children. To backtrack on it would be a very unwelcome move. Child benefit goes to the mother, which is important. It is especially important that it goes to the mother who stays at home and looks after her children, as she does not share the opportunities of working mothers who have their own money in their pockets. Child benefit helps to offset the poverty trap. Its universality, which has been criticised, contains a significant merit: child benefit increases but it does not promote the poverty trap at the same time.
      If child benefit is pegged, as the Government intend, we shall hit perhaps not the poorest families — my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and my hon. Friend the Minister pointed out that there are other ways of helping the very poorest—but those who are not quite so poor, whose income falls just above the level at which they can claim selective benefits. It must be said that one or two of our other policies also tend to hit that group. I refer to the poll tax and to the introduction of capital limits on housing benefits. It would be a great mistake to go in for a policy that would make life more difficult for those in that group.
      I do not understand why the Government have had this change of heart. In the Green Paper on the reform of social security in 1985, the Government said:
      "The case for changing it"—
      child benefit—
      "has not been made out. The Government do not therefore propose to alter its basis or structure."
      Although I acknowledge that it has not been sanctified in statute, I believe that regular uprating has been part of the basis of child benefit. Finally, there is the 1987 manifesto commitment, which there is no need to repeat.
      Let me finish with one other quotation. Speaking on 28 July 1980, the then Secretary of State for Social Services said:
      "it is our intention, subject to economic and other circumstances, to uprate child benefit each year to maintain its value." —[Official Report, 28 July 1980; Vol. 989, c. 1063.]
      Of course, economic circumstances have changed since 1980—for the better. The Government are more able to maintain the uprating than they were in 1980. If one looks at the picture with any sense of humanity, one can see that the right policy is to continue regularly to uprate child benefit.
      Mr. Ronnie Fearn: We had a long debate on this subject in the Standing Committee. Therefore, I propose to put my comments in a nutshell. Nevertheless, they are most sincere. I shall support new clause 1 and I see great merit in new clause 4, too.
      The effect of the new clause would be to halt the relative decline in the tax-free income of families with children compared with that of single and childless people. Since 1979, the real level of the single person's tax allowance has risen by 14 per cent. and of the married man's tax allowance by 17 per cent.
      Mr. Tim Boswell: My memory is obviously failing me. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will be kind enough to refer us to the discussion in the Standing Committee. As I remember it, the Liberal spokesman was absent on a number of occasions. When he was present, he voted consistently with the Labour Opposition. I can remember no debate on child benefit, although some of us might have wished to take part in such a debate.
      Mr. Fearn: I remember that the majority of Conservative Members took no part whatever in the debate.
      Since 1979 the real level of the married man's tax allowance has risen by 17 per cent., whereas child benefit's real value has declined by 3 per cent. As child benefit replaced the old child tax allowance as well as the family allowance, it is now the only means in the tax and benefit system of achieving some degree of equity between those with, and those without, children. In the run-up to a Budget that is likely to include further cuts in taxation, it seems appropriate to voice the widespread view that increases in child benefit's real value should be seen as a form of tax cut targeted on families with children.
      Child benefit can also be seen as an efficient means of redistributing income over a family's life cycle to the point at which it is most needed. Individuals pay national insurance contributions and draw the benefits when they are needed. Similarly, child benefit, paid for through taxation, targets resources to the stage in a family's life at which, whatever its income, needs are greater and that income is usually lower. I maintain that we must retain the true value of child benefit.
      Mr. John Maples: Essentially, the five speeches that we have heard so far have been pleas for universal, as opposed to means-tested, benefits. Those pleas have been made eloquently, both by my hon. Friends and by Opposition Members. However, hon. Members have not extended the logic of the argument to other benefits or pointed out that such arrangements are a recipe for high taxation. I shall return to the argument about universal benefits, because that subject is raised very precisely by this debate.
      First, let me reflect that this debate arises because the Government did not uprate child benefit last year. One fact that has emerged, which many people have not realised, is that 3 million of the 12 million who benefit —the 3 million poorest—would not have benefited from an uprating. The failure to uprate has enabled the Secretary of State to direct the additional money to the poorest children as child benefit could never have done. Perhaps we should be grateful that the whole question of how families in need should be helped has been raised.
      We spend more than £4·5 billion on child benefit, paying it to nearly 7 million families. Of those 7 million,
      196
      two thirds — 4·75 million — pay more tax than they receive in child benefit. That is an incredibly inefficient way of helping the poor and raises three aspects which one might, in the nicest possible way, call nonsense. The hon. Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook) referred to one of them, although he thought that it was a good aspect of child benefit that it transferred income from husbands to wives. It is no function of the state to have one of its agencies, the Inland Revenue, taxing husbands, and another, the Department of Health and Social Security, paying the money over to their wives. We should leave families who are not beneficiaries of child benefit or of the system for helping families with children to look after themselves.
      Secondly, it seems nonsense to tax families and to pay them benefits. There are not just transfers from husband to wife; family units pay tax to one agency of the state and receive the same or less money back from another agency of the state. That is an extraordinarily inefficient way of helping the poor and a bad way for the state to interfere in people's lives.
      Sir Brandon Rhys Williams rose—
      Mr. Maples: If I may just make my third point, I shall, of course, give way to my hon. Friend.
      Thirdly — this point has been made by my hon. Friend the Member for Ryedale (Mr. Greenway) — it seems wrong to tax people who are low earners but who do not happen to have children, and to pay child benefit to people who are often on above-average earnings. One can take as an example a young single person who might be a shop assistant earning about £100 a week. Why should he or she pay tax to help finance the child benefit that is paid to people who may receive one and a half, two or even three times average earnings?
      Sir Brandon Rhys Williams: On my hon. Friend's argument, it would be wrong for a pensioner to draw his national insurance pension and to pay tax at the same time. He ought to renounce his pension.
      Mr. Maples: With the greatest respect to my hon. Friend, old-age pensions are paid from national insurance contributions. People who draw pensions have paid the contributions to finance them. Benefits that are paid for on a contributory basis are entirely different from benefits that are financed out of general taxation. Child benefit is financed out of general taxation; pensions are not.
      Mr. Frank Field: Will the hon. Gentleman ask his right hon. and hon. Friends on the Front Bench the size that the pension would be if it were paid out on contributions only? Most people's old-age pensions are not paid because they have built up a contribution record but because of the amount of money that we pay in in the current week.
      Mr. Maples: I do not know the precise calculations. However, I do know that one cannot draw the old-age pension without having paid national insurance contributions for a long time. However, one can draw child benefit without ever having paid any tax or national insurance contributions.
      To return to my three points relating to the transfers of money from husbands to wives, from families to the Inland Revenue, to the Department of Health and Social Security and back to the families and from low-income earners to high-income earners, it seems to me that we have devised a most inefficient way of helping the poor

      197
      and one which involves great expense. It should not be beyond human ingenuity to devise a way of helping poor families. Indeed, I think that we should do so more generously. If, to help poor families, we have to help rich ones also, it is, incredibly expensive. We should try to devise a method of giving such help rather more generously than we do to people who really need it.
      All hon. Members who have spoken have made eloquent pleas for universal, as opposed to means-tested, benefits. The ultimate extension of that would be for the state to take 90 per cent. or 100 per cent. of a person's income and to pay 90 per cent. or 100 per cent. back in benefit. I remind my hon. Friends that that is a wholly Socialist idea. It was articulated eloquently and at great length in Anthony Crosland's book, "The Future of Socialism", the overwhelming theme of which is the plea that the Government should raise a large amount of money in taxation. Indeed, eight years after reading it, that is the only thing that I remember clearly about it —[Interruption.] The hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field) may have been there; I do not know. The overwhelming theme was that the Government should raise large amounts of money in taxation and then give universal benefits, at a high level.
      The hon. Members who have spoken have prayed that argument in aid of the present system of child benefit. They did not say that it could perfectly logically be extended to all sorts of other benefits, and that the price that we must pay for it is high taxation such as we saw under the previous Labour Government. That is not the state's business. Its business is raising as little money as it needs to perform its proper functions and to discharge its proper responsibilities. The state should raise as little tax as it possible can to do so. Clearly, one of the state's responsibilities is to help families with children who would otherwise be in need. I would suggest —I feel strongly about this—that it is not the state's business to raise large amounts of taxation to help those families who are not in need, but that is the system we have.
      I accept the criticism mentioned by those hon. Members who argued for universal benefits, that means-tested benefits accentuate the poverty trap. That is true.
      Sir Ian Gilmour rose—
      6.45 pm
      Mr. Maples: I shall give way to my right hon. Friend once I have dealt with the question of the poverty trap.
      The new social security system which I believe will be introduced this year and in which family credit, income support and housing benefit will be related to after-tax income, will go a long way to ameliorating what has been the worst aspect of the—
      Mr. Frank Field: It is tiny.
      Mr. Maples: The hon. Gentleman says, "It is tiny," but the poverty trap used to be able to reach effective levels of withdrawal of over 100 per cent.— indeed, of 130 per cent. or 135 per cent. As I understand it, under the new system it will never be able to reach 100 per cent. —[Interruption.] There must be a withdrawal rate of means-tested benefit. I do not see anything wrong with that. I do not think that it is the same as taxing people.
      To say that giving a person a benefit because they would otherwise be in poverty and in need and then
      198
      withdrawing it as they get wealthier is the same as imposing a level of income tax on them is to turn the definitions of tax and benefit on their heads. I accept that there must be a withdrawal rate. The steepness of the taper will reflect what the Government feel they can afford at any given time and their policy and priorities. It seems perfectly reasonable that there should be a taper. That is not the same as a marginal tax rate—
      Mr. Robin Cook rose—
      Sir Ian Gilmour rose—
      Mr. Maples: I give way to my right hon. Friend.
      Sir Ian Gilmour: The bias of my hon. Friend's argument seems to be that there should be no differentiation in the tax system between families with children and single persons or couples without children. Is that right?
      Mr. Maples: No, not entirely, because we have a married man's tax allowance which benefits married men who do not have children. In general, I believe that those people, whether single, married or with children, who have adequate incomes with which to look after themselves and their own affairs should be left to do so. Those who do not should be helped. It may have been forced out of me, but that is a clearer statement of what I think. We should be looking—I hope that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State is doing so—for a more effective way of helping families with children who are in need and who would otherwise be in poverty instead of raising £4·6 billion from 7 million families and giving it back to those 7 million when only 2·5 million of the 7 million actually benefit.
      Mrs. Audrey Wise: The hon. Member for Lewisham, West (Mr. Maples) has just spoken about inefficiency, but the fact is that he has been unable to suggest any method of giving assistance to families such as he has described which does not involve the most incredibly complicated bureaucracy. It is a characteristic of means-tested benefits that they involve complicated assessments, a large bureaucracy, reviews and, whether we like it or not, stigma and gross interference in the lives of people on low incomes. That may not be of any concern to Conservative Members, but it does concern many people in this country.
      There is nothing efficient about means-tested benefits. They fail to carry out the targeting function placed on them. In contrast, universal benefits have the advantages of being cheap to collect. They do not involve complicated reviews, tribunals or assessment officers. They are simply paid to those who qualify by means of a simple fact—in this case that there are children of the relevant age. The present system is an efficient way of paying money and of targeting. It is a fact that at any given level of income, people with children are in a worse financial position than people without children at the same level of income, and it is a fact that most of the people who are in poverty in this country have children.
      If it were simple to direct means-tested benefits so that they do reach their targets, poor children would have been lifted out of poverty long ago. We have had eight years of a Government who have told us on every conceivable occasion that they are trying to lift poor families out of their poverty. However, they have manifestly failed to do so.
      Those hon. Members who have referred to the tax allowance system and who directed our minds back to the

      199
      origins of child benefit were on absolutely the right lines. For many years after the introduction of the family allowance system in, I believe, 1948, we had a dual system. With family allowances, a poor level of money was paid universally. Child tax allowances were more valuable but did not cover the whole population, because they did not include those who were too poor to pay tax. Those two systems continued in tandem, but the position was uneasy and unsatisfactory. Many of us were pleased when the Labour Government decided that the system should be abandoned and child tax allowances should be switched so that we paid child benefit instead.
      The hon. Member for Kensington (Sir B. Rhys Williams) reminded the House that people forget that child benefit stands in place of child tax allowances, and he did us a favour in so doing. It is important not to forget that child benefit did not drop from heaven; it stands in place of child tax allowances. Families who previously received child tax allowances were deprived of those allowances because they were being replaced by something that we thought would be better. So the deprivation was in name and not in fact. We favoured child benefit because we truly believed it would benefit children. That it does so has already been pointed out, and I shall not labour the point unduly, but, in view of the speech made by the hon. Member for Lewisham, West, it is important to point out that it benefits children because it goes to families who are too low paid to pay tax, and it benefits mothers. Those are substantial advantages.
      However, an unexpected result arose from the Government's peculiar method of accounting. I am not making a party political point. I am sure that hon. Members on both sides find it as incomprehensible as I do that child or any other tax allowances are not regarded as a public expense, but child benefit is. Even if the amount paid had been left at exactly the same level as it was when under the heading of child tax allowance, the latter was not counted as public expenditure, but as soon as it was labelled child benefit it became so counted. That is a peculiarity of the Treasury, and it is no justification for taking it out on kids.
      When discussing labels and benefits, we must not lose sight of the main fact, which is that we want child benefit to be preserved — nay, increased — in value because families need the money. At any given level of income, childless people are better off than people with children. There is no justification for that. Our society needs children; we need to replace ourselves. We need people to be the future workers who will look after us in our old age, whether they be our own children or those of the community. Children are a benefit, a blessing and a necessity to society, and it is up to us to ensure that they live in families with the necessary financial resources to keep them well, happy and in good order. That is what child benefit is about.
      It costs a lot of money to bring up children, and it is perfectly justifiable for single people to pay taxes to help with the care of children. It astonishes me that when hon. Members adduce examples, they always choose the low-paid single person and the wealthy parent. Most parents are not wealthy. If one has children, regardless of whether the mother goes out to work, the family income suffers. Obviously, it suffers most during the time when she stays at home. Most mothers stay at home for considerable periods of time. Clearly, that does tremendous damage to the family income, but when the mother returns to work,
      220
      the family income does not suddenly leap to what it would have been. She will probably have lost an opportunity to enhance her income. If one has children, one's expenses when working are higher. Child care must be paid for, arid more has to be spent on domestic equipment and all sorts of things to help with the running of the house. Even two-income families with children find it harder going than two-income families without. These are simple matters, and everyone outside understands them now.
      There was a time when Governments were nervous about family allowances and child benefits — arid certainly about abolishing child tax allowances. The hon. Member for Kensington is right. The Labour Government found this a difficult problem and had to be constantly reminded—especially by their Back Benchers—that most of the electorate were women. Governments of any colour make a great mistake when they feel nervous of the voters because they see them as irate males resenting the transfer from their wallets to the handbags. But the handbags are held by more hands than are the wallets.
      Because we realised these straightforward facts, we were able to persuade the Labour Government to stick to their guns and go ahead and transfer to child benefit, but we never anticipated that the new device would be used by Governments in the future as an easy way of freezing the benefit or allowing it to be eroded. That was a wholly unexpected side effect. I feel like a doctor who has administered a drug to someone in good faith and then discovers a completely unexpected side effect.
      The Government would not dare freeze child tax allowances if they still existed. After the amendment to which copious reference has been made this evening, it has been established that the tax threshold must rise at least in line with prices. That is now the received orthodoxy. The whole establishment has now followed the former rebels. The Government would not have dared to allow child tax allowance values to he eroded. So it is up to all of us who favoured the change to child benefit — not only Opposition Members — to prevent the side effect from continuing. It should be as unthinkable to allow child benefit value to be eroded as to allow tax thresholds to be eroded.
      I join my hon. Friends who have called on Conservative Members to act in accordance with their consciences. I give Conservative Members some advice straight from the shoulder. The Government will not harm the Opposition if they resist the new clause. We shall not suffer. Listening to the long list of organisations read out by my hon. Friend the Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook), one knows that the Opposition have, behind and alongside them, many people of all sorts, incomes and constituencies. We shall not be harmed by our stand tonight. The Government arid children will be harmed. Sometimes it is up to Government Back Benchers to defend their Government and compel them to act in the better interests of their party. It does not matter to me if the Conservative Government harm themselves. If that were all that was at stake, I would say, "Go ahead; carry on; we will make the most of it," but I would much rather we did not have to receive any credit for standing firm against the Government tonight, because of the harm that will be done by them to children, families and mothers.
      When Conservative Members go into the Lobby tonight they should bear in mind that if they vote in favour of the amendments they will be defending their manifesto. They should remember that, in the end, it is the

      201
      Government in power who get the credit for any improvement in benefits. The Opposition will not get the credit even if the amendments are accepted—the credit will go to the Government. However, it is the children who will benefit and that is what is important to us.
      7 pm
      Mr. Robin Squire: It is a particular pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Preston (Mrs. Wise), who has an honourable record on this issue and one that is recognised as such by hon. Members on both sides of the Chamber.
      There have been some interesting suggestions about possible changes in the system of taxation or benefits. However, we come back to the fact that any decision tonight will be based upon our existing tax and credit system. Therefore, I restate what has been stated by many other hon. Members: the most effective way, under our present system, to assist the reduction in family poverty is through the payment of child benefit. There is no argument about that. We can argue among ourselves about the balance of priorities and how we would like to change things so that they could be slightly better, but there can be no argument about the payment of child benefit. Indeed, such a payment may be linked with the view that I believe is held by most hon. Members—the defence of the concept of the family. We should not pay lip service to that concept but should translate it into reality.
      For some years there has been a net transfer of resources from families to those without families. We must recognise that and the debate takes place within that context. When we consider that trend and the desire to defend the family we should surely conclude that there is no case for reducing, in real terms, the amount of available credit. There is every case for seeking to start to redress the balance and to give practical assistance to families.
      I welcome the assistance that has been given to low-income families as a result of the recent changes announced by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State. However, my right hon. Friend knows better than any of us that, with the most optimistic take-up figures that may be expected, there will still be between one in four and one in five families who will not take up the means-tested benefit. By definition, those families are the poorest in our society. Some of my colleagues imagine that our problems would be solved if we could only remove the rich people from the system and concentrate on paying those on low incomes. However, they should grasp the central fact that the price of that policy would be that many families would simply not receive the support which we believe they should receive and which the state lays down they are entitled to receive. Indeed, it is interesting that, almost unique to this subject—if I may qualify the word unique — the statement "they do not need it" arises. Certain people seem to be able to say of child benefit, "They do not need it". I do not hear such a statement about tax cuts. I did not hear it when we raised the level of mortgage interest relief. On the contrary, many of my hon. Friends said that that increase was overdue and that things were difficult for first time buyers. However, with regard to child benefit, we have reached the stage of being expert at judging what people do or do not need.
      202
      The effect of child benefit for those who are paying more tax than they receive in benefit is that of a tax credit, albeit through a different financial system—the DHSS. We have not changed that system and we can only work within it; indeed, there is no better way.
      I always listen to my hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham, West (Mr. Maples) with considerable respect as he speaks on financial matters with much authority. He almost persuaded me that I had to choose between universal benefits and means-tested benefits. However, I am not sure that I have to make that choice. I believe that a system solely composed of universal benefits would be so inexplicably and disastrously expensive that it would, rightly, be rejected by all my hon. Friends. Equally, a system composed solely of means-tested benefit—under whatever system—would cement a two-class system in our country. There would be a permanent under-class of those who had to apply for every element of assistance. The combination of means-tested and universal benefits avoids that dreadful scenario.
      I believe that by linking child benefit to the present system, as proposed in the new clause, we will be able to do something positive for families and especially families in need.
      Miss Emma Nicholson: For a number of years the Conservative Women's Organisation—it represents more than 500,000 women throughout the United Kingdom—has made the centrepiece of its submission to the Chancellor every February before his Budget the retention of child benefit as a universal benefit, the retention of child benefit as a real benefit and the continuing payment of child benefit to the mother.
      What does the Conservative Women's Organisation mean by a "real benefit?" It means that that benefit should rise in line with inflation and preferably by more than inflation. The meaning of universal benefit is self-explanatory—it should be paid to everyone irrespective of income and background. It should be paid to whoever has children — single parents or married people. The organisation believes that anyone who has a child should benefit. The Conservative Women's Organisation believes that that is important, because it believes it is representing the party of the family.
      What does the family mean today? It no longer means a married couple with two or three children with one head of household working. In the past 20 years, the family has changed beyond all recognition. The family now means all sorts of things. It can mean the single parent with a child or more than one child. It can mean a married couple with one person working, although that represents a small fraction of today's families. It can mean two parents working with children. It can mean two parents out of work with children and, of course, it can mean a married couple with no children. The modern family is a very different animal from the sort of family that we may recall if we cast our minds back to the immediate post-war years.
      These days, I believe that the definition of the family really means concentrating on helping children. Child benefit is unique, in that it does just that. How have the Chancellor and the Secretary of State responded to the Conservative Women's Organisation's submission this year? They have responded with the worst possible answer — they have frozen child benefit. That has resulted in the wealthy couple, with the non-working wife, continuing

      203
      to draw child benefit. Indeed, one couple that I know and value draw child benefit for four children. They then take the children out for dinner at an immensely grand restaurant with the bill coming to about £135—and why not? It is their benefit and it is their right.
      However, with the freezing of child benefit, the poor, who depend on child benefit to balance their budgets, have suffered drastically. I do not just mean the statutory single parent with children living in an inner-city environment who may be held up as being most at risk as a result of freezing child benefit. I think of the farmer's wife who lives near me at home. She has only 40 cows and, with milk quotas, is having a terrible time making ends meet and tells me that she cannot do without child benefit. She has only two children. It is a very slender input into her family budget in terms of cash value, but, in terms of the proportion of her budget, it matters immensely. The freezing of child benefit has brought her close to the poverty margin. We have got the worst of all worlds by freezing child benefit. A genuine debate on the value of child benefit to our society is long overdue. Indeed, the debate should be even wider and certainly much better attended than it is tonight.
      I hope very much that the Minister will spend considerable time this year discussing within his Department and then in the wider context of Parliament what we should do about child benefit. Every year, child benefit comes up rather like a punchball, but we are lucky if child benefit is raised. Other people believe that it is good if it is frozen. Some people would prefer to have it thrown out of the window. Can we not discuss this thoroughly and properly and then have it either thrown aside, modified or firmly linked to our economic structure, so that the people who receive child benefit—the mothers—know exactly where they stand?
      This debate spills over inevitably into the reform of personal taxation. The married man's tax allowance has already been mentioned. That was created at a time when married women did not work. In 1936, 6 per cent. of all married women worked. That figure is now 63 per cent. and married women are the fastest growing sector of the working population, so times have changed. The married man's tax allowance was meant as a bolstering operation: to recognise the value of children and the immense drain that they make on a family budget. The married man's tax allowance is now wholly outdated and goes to a large number of people who have no children. With so many working women, it should be cast aside and forgotten. The money should be recycled and used in a different way. Possibly it should be put towards a universal benefit, such as child allowance.
      Some hon. Members have mentioned their unhappiness —quite proper in some respects—about wealthy people receiving child benefit. Speaking from the woman's point of view, there are many older non-working women—the younger married women usually tend to work—whose husbands, although receiving large incomes, do not respond as they should and do not give their wives the housekeeping money that they need to support their children. Their wives are relatively poor, and therefore their children are relatively poorer. It is a grave error to think that, because a man is wealthy and because he is a member of that shrinking band of heads of households who are single earners, he will respond as he should to his
      204
      wife. It is a peculiar aberration among the wealthy that they sometimes think that they are poorer than they are and do not even support their own families.
      I cannot offer the perfect solution to this ever-growing and difficult problem. I ask for a firm and genuine commitment from the Minister that he will take seriously to heart the need to solve this problem once and for all. He must support the care and nurture of our children in a much broader and more positive and generous way than our country is historically used to doing. 1 have long thought that we undervalue children and, as a society, we suffer as a result.
      7.15 pm
      Mr. Jacques Arnold: I cannot help thinking that in this debate we are perhaps straying a little far from the point. In line with the cost of living increase, the Government were proposing to put, in cash terms, an additional £120 million into child benefit, but have decided not to do so. In taking that decision, they have taken account of the key point. However, by putting an increased amount into child benefit, they are spreading these additional resources indiscriminately among all families with children in this country. It is wholly indiscriminate and ineffectual to fire off these resources at families, regardless of income, as this would include families of hon. Members and families of people better paid than hon. Members.
      Sir Brandon Rhys Williams: Would my hon. Friend prefer an untargeted tax cut which would relieve the tax burden of families with and without children and of single people? Does he think that that would be a more acceptable use of resources?
      Mr. Arnold: No, I do not. We must consider carefully how that £120 million has been applied. By spreading it over the general population, we shall miss having the maximum effect on the very under-class to which the hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field) referred. Better-off families will benefit from such an increase in child benefit, but the families about whom we should be concerned—the under-class, containing 3 million children, who are already on benefit — would lose 10p for every 10p increase in child benefit and get a net cash increase of zero.
      It seems far wiser to take the path proposed by the Government, to take that £120 million, add to it afresh £80 million and apply that £200 million to the family credit scheme, which is to be introduced in April, over and above the amount currently applied through family income supplement. That targeting is far more relevant. If we care about the children of this country, we should care for the children of parents who can cope and for those children in the greatest need of resources for their development. The Government are concentrating on those children in need, and they have my support.
      Mr. Andrew-Rowe: Almost everything that needs to be said in this debate has been said and I shall be brief. We are debating a balance of pragmatisms. It is wonderful to have theoretical designs and I should love to have such a wonderfully well-integrated tax and benefit system that there was no disincentive for people to go out to work or to catch buses at 6 o'clock in the morning to augment a fully-declared income. These things may one day come about, although I grow increasingly wary of

      205
      them. The cost of moving to a fully integrated tax and benefit system is in the short term horrendous and very few Governments would be able to find the resources to do it.
      We are now discussing a balance of practicalities. That balance lies in uprating child benefit. For all the reasons listed in the debate tonight, it is important that families, who notoriously are the least likely to understand a complex system of claiming, should be able to receive benefit as of right, rather than having to go through a series of hoops, many of which are difficult to understand, difficult of access or unattractive to them. It is wholly appropriate that, until the system is running better, we should make it possible for people to have a benefit which retains its value year on year, so that they know that, whatever happens to the economy, that part of their income will be secure.
      I am conscious of the fact that Ministers are trying to act from good motives. They are trying to target the poorest and to ensure that the least well off families will benefit. One of the mistakes that they make is that they are having to do it within their DHSS budget.
      The issue goes wider than that. I have often heard it said with considerable credibility that one would need fewer social workers if the income of the clients of many social workers were higher, and the incomes of social workers were paid from the same budget within the same Ministry.
      Referring to the balance of pragmatisms, we should remember that when the Government were elected in 1979, one of their clearest policy statements was that they would become the Government of a society in which perks were done away with; that everything would become a matter of income and income tax; and it would be very much more straightforward. Of course, practicalities have intervened and we have taken policy decisions, such as not phasing out mortgage relief and continuing to allow tax relief for various business expenses, although gradually the Inland Revenue is putting the squeeze on some of them.
      It is because we move in an essentially imperfect world that I support strongly what my right hon. Friend the Member for Aylesbury (Mr. Raison) said. On too many occasions, recent policy decisions have squeezed rather harder than is fair those who are just above the poorest level, as we move towards what I hope will be a better system. If we put the little bits of the jigsaw in first, the wrong people are being damaged. For that reason, I support the intention to uprate child benefit.
      Mr. Scott: We have had an excellent debate, with strong feelings arising on this issue. We are touching on familiar ground because in the statement and the order we have discussed this year's uprating. I understand why hon. Members have questioned the attitude of the Government and future Governments to the benefit. In essence, I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Kent (Mr. Rowe) in everything except his conclusion. What we are doing essentially is making a pragmatic and balanced judgment, which flows from the decision of the Government not to uprate child benefit this year, about whether it is right to tie the hands of future Ministers on the use of resources that go into uprating child benefit, or whether they should have the opportunity to decide on the use of those resources year by year, in the light of unforeseeable demands which might exist.
      Mr. Raison: My intervention is triggered by the word "resources". This year, more than other years, there are all the signs that resources are available.
      Mr. Scott: I am not discussing this year; I am talking about tying the hands of the Government to allocate resources in successive years, ignorant of whether resources will be available or, assuming they are, whether this is the best way to spend them. The House should address that question tonight.
      Mr. Frank Field: Will the Minister bring before the House shortly a proposal for the de-indexation of benefits and tax allowances so that there will be total freedom in the future?
      Mr. Scott: The hon. Gentleman knows better than that. I was trying to identify the issue, which I hope the House will address before voting tonight and will not be carried away by some of the arguments and issues raised, many of which are wider than the pragmatic and balanced decision which I hope hon. Members will make. I hope they will make the right decision when I have had the chance to seek to persuade them to come in my direction, rather than that of the majority of voices in the debate.
      The hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field), my hon. Friend the Member for Kensington (Sir B. Rhys Williams) and others have talked about possible changes in the pattern of national benefits and insurance in the future, which we are not addressing today. I am sure that Ministers, not just those in the Department, will read with interest the points made and will take them into account in looking at future policies.
      Some hon. Members today have said that they look forward to a radical look at child benefit, but that question is not before the House this evening; it is simply whether we should index-link the benefit. Listening to some of the contributions, one would have thought it was a simple choice between index-linking the benefit or abolishing it. That issue is not before the House.
      I understand the depth of feeling on the subject and I am sorry, having listened to many of the contributions, that I have to ask hon. Members to reject the new clause. I emphasise—I hope this is common ground—that this is not because the Government do not take seriously or in any way underestimate the importance of improving the help available to families ; quite the contrary. Recognition has been given by Government and Opposition Members to the efforts of the Government on that front. We do not propose to increase child benefit next April under the uprating order, but we are putting far more than it would cost to uprate the benefit into help for families. That has been acknowledged widely in the debate.
      The benefit is unique in that it is paid directly to the mother. It is worth reminding the House that the family credit system, which will replace FIS when it comes into operation in April, will be paid to the mother. The hon. Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook) implied that the value of the family credit scheme had somehow been eroded by the Government. The value of family credit for an average earner with two children under 11 will be higher in real terms than it was when we came to office in 1979. Hon. Members are familiar with the figures. This year's non-uprating of child benefit has saved around £120 million net. From next April we shall spend around £100 million

      207
      extra on family and income support and over £200 million extra on the family credit scheme. That will be paid directly to mothers.
      There is no dispute in the House about the importance of help for families. Our calculation of the relative importance in the social security system of help for different groups has resulted in extra help for families in the system we shall introduce in April. I hope that hon. Members will recognise that we shall put more into helping families than would have been provided had we uprated the benefit by 30p.
      Mr. Robin Cook: I do not know whether I misunderstood the Minister, but I thought he said that the current level of child benefit is higher than is necessary to maintain the 1979 value. If so, I point him in the direction of the answers he has given me in the past two months, which clearly state that if the 1979 value were maintained child benefit this April would have to be £7·80, not the £7·25 it will be.
      Mr. Scott: That value is for two children under 11. I cannot give an answer across the whole range, but that is the answer I can give and I am assured that it is correct.
      Mr. Cook: I confess that I am puzzled. Perhaps I am being slow in following what the Minister is saying, and perhaps he can assist me. I cannot understand the distinction that he makes between this benefit and others. The benefit is paid at a flat rate and its value will be maintained for all earners or those who earn nothing. The Minister's answer plainly implied that its value would need to be increased by 55p to restore its purchasing power of 1979.
      7.30 pm
      Mr. Scott: Perhaps we should pursue the statistics later, but I am advised that from 1979, when the Government came to office, the purchasing power of the benefit has been maintained. We may have opportunities to debate the point but I am assured that before 1979, as compared to the present position, the value is higher.
      Before I gave way to the hon. Gentleman, I was saying that the Government judged that it was better to use resources in such a way as to help family credit and income supplement for families with children rather than to uprate benefit by 30p. I do not believe that that option should be taken away from Ministers in future. There is an obvious disagreement about how we should spend these resources. Spending them on a general increase in child benefit would mean that help is spread very thinly to around 7 million families. Most of those families would have little or no real need of the extra 30p, although I do not deny for a moment that they might be very glad to have it.
      Another major group of families, the less-well-off, that receives income support and family credit would find an extra 30p important and valuable. But those families would not receive it. If child benefit had been increased they would have lost that money from their other benefits. The point that I am making to the House, therefore, is essentially simple. If we wish to do more to help families in real need, child benefit is not the best-directed way of doing so. The costs are huge. In gross terms, an increase of 10p costs £60 million to implement; in net terms it costs £40 million. Most of the extra money will go to those who do not seriously need it.
      The Government have taken the view that it is more sensible this year to direct these resources elsewhere. I
      208
      believe that that option should be available to future Governments; not to do that would impose inflexibility upon future Ministers, and that would be inappropriate.
      I wish to answer the point that was made by several of my hon. Friends and, indeed, by one or two Opposition Members, that in some way the wording in the Conservative party manifesto or ministerial statements imposes a moral obligation on the Government to uprate child benefit in line with inflation. The words "paid as now" have been interpreted to mean that year by year this benefit will be index-linked. I do not believe that that process can be sustained. The Government have never undertaken to uprate child benefit in line with inflation. That is also the case with tax allowances and, indeed, other social security benefits. If previous Ministers had intended to do that, I am quite sure they would have introduced measures to that effect.
      Sir Ian Gilmour: Will my right hon. Friend then say what the words in the manifesto really did mean?
      Mr. Scott: The words say that the benefit would be paid as a universal benefit, tax-free, and to the mother. That undertaking has not been changed by anything in this year's uprating. I believe that that obligation was right. I am sure, bearing in mind the pattern of linking other social security benefits to the RPI, that had there been an intention to link this benefit it would have been included in the list by one Government or another.
      The other point that I wish to make relates to a suggestion by the hon. Member for Livingston. He says that by referring to our determination to keep the benefit under constant review we shall put it under constant threat. I do not believe that he can read that into it. It is right that this hugely expensive benefit should be kept under constant review, like all other benefits. That is not to say that we plan to change child benefit. It simply says that in a modern welfare state we have an obligation to ensure that available resources are used to the very best effect.
      There has been much discussion today about universality and means testing. The point has been well made in the debate that to go entirely for one or other of those systems is unthinkable, but somehow a pragmatic judgment must be made as to where benefits are needed, and the role of means testing. I do not doubt or criticise for a moment the points that have been made this afternoon about the benefits that flow from universal child benefit. Of course I recognise that such a benefit helps all families with children, whatever their other resources. I know that it represents investment in future generations and that the less-well-off are guaranteed some financial help. I know that it is simple to claim, easy to administer, and has virtually a 100 per cent. take-up. I acknowledge all those advantages, but it is only fair to put the disadvantages into the scales.
      It is an expensive benefit costing £4·6 billion a year at present. Much of it goes to comfortably off families who cannot in any sense claim to need it. Extra help is not available to go to the most needy because resources that could otherwise go to them are tied up. Equal benefit has to be paid regardless of need. It does not help the poorest who receive income support or family credit, because the level of child benefit is taken into account in establishing entitlement to those benefits. I am simply saying that a

      209
      balance must be struck. I acknowledge that advantages flow from universality, but there are disadvantages as well. It is right that the House should recognise them.
      Mrs. Wise: I have listened to the Minister's list with interest. He has failed notably to grapple with the point that was made on both sides, that child benefit ought to be compared to tax allowances. That is the historic route. Will he now give the House his view about that? Why should tax allowances be index-linked and not child benefit?
      Mr. Scott: We have decided to index-link tax allowances is well as some social security benefits. We have not decided to index-link this benefit. I do not believe, as I have said, that we should tie the hands of future Governments about the way in which this resource might be used. I believe that it was right to use the resources this year, for the reasons that I have outlined to the House, for the family credit scheme and as extra help for families with children within the income support scheme, rather than to give a 30p increase across the board.
      It would be wrong to listen to the siren voices asking us today to pre-empt decisions for a future that we cannot foresee about the allocation of resources. Therefore, I ask the House to reject the new clause. My hon. Friend the Member for Torridge and Devon, West (Miss Nicholson) asked us to make sure that we got this right for all time and had a comprehensive review. It would be bold to say that we could do that, but we are determined to see that the considerable sums of taxpayers' money that are provided for social security are used increasingly to help those most in need. It would not be serving that aim well if we accepted the new clause tonight.
      Mr. Robin Cook: I shall respond briefly to the Minister. I am happy to correct his recollection of the Conservative party manifesto. It says that child benefit will continue to be paid as at present, which is not what he quoted to the House. Apparently, we are now to take that commitment as being strictly literal arithmetically. I think that the Minister would accept that many who read the manifesto would form a quite different conclusion, that it meant that the value of child benefit would be maintained as at present.
      We have had an excellent debate. I am confirmed in that view because our side—and by "our side", on this occasion, I include all those who have spoken in support of new clauses 2 and 4—won handsomely. There were nine speeches in favour of one or other of the new clauses, or both of them, and three speeches against them. Therefore, I hope the House will forgive me if I savour the moment when I am winning before the Division bells ring and we are clobbered in the Lobbies.
      There was a curious feature to the debate. It was substantially a debate for and against child benefit. Those who are tempted to follow the Minister into the Lobby tonight to vote against both new clauses should reflect that they will find themselves in the company not only of the Minister but of hon. Members who have spoken explicitly against child benefit and who plainly would favour its abolition. Until the Minister spoke, no one spoke in favour of keeping child benefit but not uprating it. I can understand why no hon. Member felt able to commit
      210
      himself to that proposition because it is not tenable intellectually. There is no point in saying that there is a case for retaining the benefit but that that case is not sufficiently strong for the value of the benefit to be maintained.
      I admired the speech of the hon. Member for Torridge and Devon, West (Miss Nicholson). She made a very convincing case which, were I a Conservative, would have persuaded me to vote for new clause 4. I indicate one point of dissent from her proposition. She said that it was time we had a general debate on child benefit. I am sorry to have to say to the hon. Lady that we seem to have had general debates on child benefit at two-year intervals for some time. It was only in 1984 that the previous Secretary of State for Social Services put child benefit into the melting pot in his review, had an exhaustive examination of it and at the conclusion of that examination agreed, admittedly through gritted teeth, that child benefit served a useful function and should be retained. I am confident that any open, thorough investigation of child benefit would come to precisely the same conclusion that hon. Members have come to in the debate—that it serves its purpose well and there is no more effective way of meeting the cost of children or of breaking the poverty trap.
      What was interesting about the debate on the Conservative Benches, because the debate was essentially on those Benches, was that it turned on the dual standards with which some Conservative Members approach cash benefits as distinct from tax allowances. I thought it was beautifully caught in the intervention of the right hon. Member for Chesham and Amersham (Sir I. Gilmour) in the speech of the hon. Member for Lewisham, West (Mr. Maples). After that intervention the hon. Member for Lewisham, West found it possible to say a favourable word for the married man's tax allowance.
      Perhaps I could advise the House of the cost of the married man's tax allowance, because I nipped out and checked with the Library. I am advised by the Library that in the last financial year, 1986–87, the total cost of that allowance was £4,450 million and in the same year the total cost of child benefit was £4,550 million, almost exactly the same. I cannot for the life of me understand why it should be regarded by some Conservative Members as perfectly right and just that through the tax system we should make available £4,500 million to married men to support their wives but wrong that through the benefit system we should make available £4,500 million to mothers to support their children.
      7.45 pm
      The argument for the one applies to the other, yet Conservative Members do not appear to be saying that the married man's tax allowance is not the best way to enable poor men to support their wives, or that it is wrong that there should be such a tax allowance because it goes to the Duke of Westminster and gives him help which he does not need to support the Duchess of Westminster. These arguments are not advanced in relation to the married man's tax allowance, yet in effect that allowance is less progressive than child benefit. At least, child benefit also goes to those who are too poor to pay tax and puts cash in the hands of those who fall below the tax threshold.
      I make a prediction. Were Conservative Members who wish to see the phasing out of child benefit—our fear is that not uprating the benefit is the way of phasing it out —successful in securing its abolition it would be only a

      211
      matter of time before the Chancellor of the Exchequer was obliged to re-invent child tax allowances. If he did not do so, we would be about the only country in the western world which gave no help through the benefit system or the tax system to people with children.
      The moment the Chancellor came back with such a proposal we would once again be faced with a system that would be less equitable than child benefit because it would put money in the hands mostly of those with the highest incomes and would not put money in the hands of those on the lowest incomes who do not pay tax. That would be less satisfactory as a way of supporting the cost of children because, by and large, it would put money in the hands of the male rather than the mother.
      Child benefit is much the best way of meeting the cost of children and breaking the poverty trap. We should keep child benefit. Hon. Members who have heard the clear threat to child benefit in the debate would be well advised to join us in the Lobby and make sure—
      Sir Brandon Rhys Williams rose—
      Mr. Cook: No, I am concluding my speech. I am so sorry; I did not see that it was my colleague. Of course, I shall give way.
      Sir Brandon Rhys Williams: I have been advised that the effects of new clause 1 and of new clause 4 would be precisely the same. In the circumstances, I think it would not be in the interests of the House, and hon. Members would not thank me, if I insisted on their coming back later to support new clause 4. Therefore, I would like to take the opportunity of recommending to those who feel as strongly as I do about this to vote for new clause 1. If they do not feel able to do that, let them at least abstain. If they do not feel able even to do that, let them write a very strong letter to the Minister, as I hope they will do.
      Mr. Cook: As the majority of speeches have come from the Conservative Benches, we will withdraw new clause 1 and will divide on new clause 4. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.
      Motion and clause, by leave, withdrawn.
      Madam Deputy Speaker (Miss Betty Boothroyd): We now come to new clause 2.
      Sir Brandon Rhys Williams: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. May we be told whether you intend to give us an opportunity to vote on new clause 4?
      Madam Deputy Speaker: Certainly there will be an opportunity to divide on new clause 4, but we can deal with new clause 4 only when we have got new clause 2 out of the way.

    New Clause 2

      ATTENDANCE ALLOWANCE FOR CHILDREN UNDER TWO
      `In section 35(5) of the Social Security Act 1975, at the end there shall be added the words "or any modification which discriminates on grounds of age against severely disabled children under the age of two."!—[Mrs. Beckett.]
      Brought up, and read the First time.
      Mrs. Margaret Beckett: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
      212
      We are now on an entirely different matter, the payment of the attendance allowance. There are stringent tests which those claiming attendance allowance have to satisfy—[Interruption.]
      Ms. Dawn Primarolo: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I cannot hear the speech of my hon. Friend. I shall be able to hear her now, because everyone has stopped speaking.
      Madam Deputy Speaker: That is the most genuine point of order that has ever been put to me in the Chair
      Mrs. Beckett: That is not as much of a compliment as it might seem, given some of the points of order that are raised.
      As I was saying, there are stringent tests which those who claim attendance allowance have to satisfy before it can be awarded. I am confident that hon. Members on both sides of the House know of cases where attendance allowance has been denied although they might have felt that it should have been awarded. Even when the stringent tests are passed, as again hon. Members on both sides may be aware, a substantial period — six months — elapses before the allowance can be paid. There must be a sufficient degree of need, a sufficient amount of care required and, particularly in the cases of those who are physically disabled, a sufficient degree of pain incurred by those applying for the attendance allowance before there can be any question of the allowance being paid. In effect, for all of that six months, the conditions for the award have to be satisfied.
      Many hon. Members will know, from their experience of their own constituency cases, of people who, unfortunately, are not as aware as all of us would wish of the circumstances in which attendance allowance can be claimed or of the fact that they may be entitled to it and who make late, sometimes very late, claims. Indeed, sometimes people have had a degree of pain and suffering and need not just for months but for years, and application for attendance allowance is made so late that the person on account of whose illness it could be paid dies before the award can come through.
      There are stringent tests of eligibility for this payment and of the period before such a payment can be made. Six months is a very long time for someone to endure that degree of pain, if those are the circumstances of his or her illness. It is a long time for the individual and those seeking to care for that individual to endure that degree of need without the financial support and what must in those circumstances be the comparatively small amount of relief that attendance allowance may provide.
      There is one small group—small in every sense of the word—who, whatever degree of pain or need they are experiencing, have to wait not six months, but two years. Children under the age of two can never, as the law stands, receive attendance allowance. They may well be, and in a number of cases certainly are, ruled out also for a whole range of other benefits.
      Partly because resources are always under pressure and, indeed, under this Government are declining, the resources available to social services committees of local authorities and other groups which may seek to alleviate the problems of those in these circumstances are and will always be allocated on the basis of priority. Choices always have to be made and when there are cuts those choices are inevitably harder and the degree of consideration of

      213
      priority is all the greater. In a very high percentage of cases, although not invariably, as the Minister is, I know, well aware, the definition of priority used is that of entitlement to other benefits, such as attendance allowance. Those who cannot qualify for attendance allowance, by definition, also often cannot qualify for the other help that might be available.
      The argument for the cut-off age of two is based on the development of a normal child, but no normal child of any age could possibly receive an attendance allowance because, apart from the criteria to which I referred at the outset, which every person who applies for attendance allowance must meet, no child can be awarded attendance allowance unless his or her attendance needs are
      "substantially in excess of that normally required by a child of the same age and sex".
      It is absolutely clear, as the Minister has admitted, that some children do fit that definition; they do experience not only the degree of need that would be required for an adult to pass those tests but a degree of need substantially in excess of that experienced by any normal child below the age of two.
      There is no logic, justice or compassion in denying children who can pass those existing serious hurdles the payment of attendance allowance merely because when that attendance allowance was first placed on the statute book some 12 years or so ago it was thought right to have a qualifying age of two. The case does not stand up for a second to the serious examination which I am sure it is going to receive at the hands of my hon. Friends, and perhaps of hon. Members on the Government side.
      We believe that the case which is being made for the removal of that arbitrary age barrier, that third hurdle for small children and their parents, is something that the House should have considered long ago and that this new clause should be carried tonight.
      Mr. Dave Nellist: As my hon. Friend the Member for Derby, South (Mrs. Beckett) has mentioned, this is the first time for a decade and a half that the full House has had the chance of debating and voting on whether there should be a lower age limit below which an attendance allowance cannot be made to someone with severe mental or physical disabilities. There have been plenty of questions during that period, particularly in the last three or four years, but tonight we have a chance to debate the reasons why the Government believe that the attendance allowance, which they accept should be paid to people over the age of two with disabilities which in many cases can be assessed well before that age, cannot be paid to those children.
      As hon. Members who served on the Standing Committee will be aware, my involvement in this issue began late last year when the grandparents of two young constgirls who are now 22 months old—Vicky and Alex Storer — wrote to me to describe the enormous difficulties the twins face. The family lives in the constituency of the hon. Member for Nuneaton (Mr. Stevens), who is present in the Chamber and who I hope will be supporting this new clause not only in a speech but also in the Lobby. The enormous difficulties with which that family has to cope because of the severity of Vicky's and Alex's disabilities could not fail to move any Member of the House who met the children. The children, with
      214
      their parents and their aunt, were in the House with me today in order to publicise the need for this new clause to be carried.
      From birth, the disability was clearly diagnosed by the attendant consultant paediatrician, the senior clinical medical officer for the area. Vicky and Alex have suffered much in the first 22 months of their life—heart surgery, brain drainage, fits and frequent resuscitation. In fact, all the social and medical evidence indicates that from their second birthday they will clearly get that attendance allowance, which by April will be a maximum of £33 a week. But why do they have to wait? Why cannot that attendance allowance be paid to them now?
      As a parent, with two of my three children of a similar age to Vicky and Alex, one eight months and the other two years old, I have direct experience of the normal problems of and attention demanded by infants. But teething and, recently, conjuctivitis, nightly feeding, and so on, cannot be compared with the strain of coping with children with the degree of disability that Vicky and Alex and children like them suffer. For the first few months of their lives, they required permanent hospital care. It may be that the fact that their mother, Sandra, was formerly a psychiatric nurse at the Walsgrave hospital in Coventry, and Paula, her sister, is currently a nurse at that hospital has helped them to cope, but the strain has certainly told on them.
      A £33 attendance allowance would make possible occasional professional help. It would allow Sandra and Peter, the girls' father, to do the shopping and other family jobs, confident that the children were being competently looked after. The job of looking after children with that degree of disability ought to be carried out on a 24-hour basis by a district health authority or a local authority social services department, and there is some help on offer from that direction. But some of the main help in recent months has been from the Crossroads carers assistance scheme, which in the midlands provides assistance to carers looking after people with disabilities, because successive cuts in the funding of the local and district health authorities have made them unable to cope with bairns and families like the Storers.
      Because the lower age limit is two years for attendance allowance and five years for mobility allowance, those bairns are denied access to other things. For example, their parents cannot get an orange badge to put on the car to enable them to use parking spaces for the disabled at the hospital, outside the council offices, by the shops or wherever it may be. So what Sandra and Peter have to do is not only to cope with two disabled bairns but also to carry an oxygen cylinder and resuscitation equipment sometimes as much as 100 yards to get to where they want to go.
      8 pm
      Another consequence of their being unable to get attendance allowance is that from April—we know this because of the changes in social security payments which are going through — there will be a disabled child premium which we understand will be about £6·15 a week. Only those who currently or by April receive attendance or mobility allowance will be entitled to that disabled child premium. The premium covers the axing of additional help that families now receive, such as help with special diets or with laundry; this assistance will be replaced by the

      215
      disabled child premium. But families with children under the age of two will not be entitled to the premium because they are not getting an attendance or mobility allowance.
      Every hon. Member present in the Chamber or who reads the debate tomorrow in Hansard will know of similar cases in his or her area of children suffering from Down's syndrome, spina bifida, autism, strokes at birth or respiratory, cardiac or intestinal malfunction. I asked the Minister to give us his own assessment for today's debate of how many children under the age of two might be eligible for the new allowance, were the House to pass the clause this evening, but unfortunately those figures have not arrived in time for the debate, so I have to make my own estimate.
      Let us say that about 10,000 or 12,000 children could be affected. Shortly before Christmas, the Minister gave me an estimate of the cost of extending provision to these children as about £17 million per year. My only comment on the size of that figure is that it is slightly less than half what it cost to refurbish the offices of the Minister, his Secretary of State and his colleagues across the road from 10 Downing street, that palace with its crystal chandeliers costing £38 million. Half that sum would have provided thousands of families with minimal financial assistance to allow them some extra professional help.
      I have been in the House nearly five years, and during that time we have heard a lot about the Tory programme for returning people to the community, particularly when it comes to closing down some of the Victorian hospitals for those with mental handicap or mental illness. There is an element of that in this debate. Sandra and Peter Storer are doing the job of the hospital service. If those bairns were in hospital, they could be costing the taxpayer about £200 a week for professional care. Sandra and Peter are doing that job because they love their family, yet they are not even getting this £33 a week which would help them to cope. It is a cruel hoax for the Tories to speak about returning people to the community as if it was a benefit to the families concerned and then not to provide resources to enable those families to cope.
      When we debated this matter in Committee on an amendment which allowed us to raise roughly the same subject matter, the Minister said:
      "I have some sympathy for some of the points made by the hon. Member for Coventry, South-East".
      He said that the argument that we were putting forward was
      "more difficult to resist, although the Committee should consider long and hard before accepting"
      the amendment.
      One of the reasons that he gave, and I accept it entirely, was his own personal experience. He said:
      "During the past two years, in my extended family I have had experience of a child who suffered from meningitis soon after birth and who will be severely handicapped for the rest of her life. She is approaching the age of two, when she will get the attendance allowance."—[Official Report, Standing Committee E, 17 November 1987; c. 62.]
      Later in the debate, the Minister said,
      "The intention in Amendment No. 17 to remove the age limit of two years has a strong, obvious and immediate appeal to anyone who is concerned with handicapped children and the stress … that is felt by families, particularly mothers." —[Official Report, Standing Committee E, 19 November 1987; c. 77.]
      I quite accept that, with his own experience, the Minister can see the scope of the problem. This leaves me with a simple question. If he understands it from his own
      216
      experience, why will he not stand up at the Dispatch Box and extend the entitlement allowance, the conditions for which, as my hon. Friend the Member for Derby, South has said, are stringent, to the 10,000 or 12,000 children who are undergoing this same experience?
      The reason that the Minister gave the Committee as to why the Government did not take this position was
      "it is difficult to make assessments for children under the age of two … all of us who have children under the age of two have to give them a degree of care and attention that would almost certainly lead us, if they were older, to qualify for attendance allowance for much if not all the time. One of my children guaranteed that never once in two years did my wife and I have an uninterrupted night — they were mostly constantly interrupted — but the brother who came afterwards gave us two years of absolute peace, so there is no pattern even in the demands that normal healthy children put on their parents during the night." — [Official Report, Standing Committee E, 17 November 1987, c. 69.]
      I can accept that from my own experience of the past two years. But the children who are diagnosed from birth by all medical and social experts as unlikely to recover from conditions suffered from birth—such as Vicky and Alex—do not fall into the mould which the Minister described of normal children of a similar age. This is riot the normal pattern of parents looking after children. I did not have to carry round an oxygen cylinder and resuscitation equipment, nor did I have to check my bairns every two hours during the nights that I have been at home, and neither did the Minister. But that is the experience of Peter and Sandra Storer and of thousands of parents like them.
      In that larger number of 10,000 or 12,000 children, there is a group of children to which I would like to draw attention. There can be absolutely no doubt that, right from birth, they will face horrifying problems in their perhaps tragically short lives. I refer to those who suffer from inherited blood disorders such as sickle sell anaemia or thalassemia major and related haemoglobin disorders. I am grateful for the assistance that I and my colleagues have been given on this by the Organisation for Sickle Cell Anaemia Research—OSCAR. Sickle cell anaemia is an inherited disorder of red blood cells affecting people whose forebears lived in those parts of the world where malaria is a scourge.
      It is estimated that there are 4,500 sufferers in the United Kingdom, most of whom live in the major conurbations. The illness is chronic, unpredictable in its recurrence and variable in its manifestations, which usually appear in early infancy. Failing medical intervention, there is a high risk of death before the age of five — before they would become entitled to mobility allowance. If the sufferer survives, she or he risks major organ damage with impaired quality of life and reduced life expectancy. Parents and families face disruption to education, employment and normal family life. It is crucial for the purposes of this debate to understand how this disorder affects young children. At about six months of age, those suffering from sickle cell anaemia may experience a painful swelling of the hands and feet, lowered resistance to infection, bodily pains, tiredness, pallor and jaundice. The abnormal red blood cells are fragile and short-lived, leading to anaemia. These cells lose oxygen and become distorted, obstructing the small blood vessels and causing localised, irreversible tissue damage.
      Neither I nor the Minister who will reply to the debate has any personal experience of this in regard to our children such as was mentioned in Committee. This sort

      217
      of caring for children is completely different from the upbringing of normal children. There is no cure for sickle cell anaemia. Prophylactic measures include regular penicillin and occasional blood transfusions, high oral fluid intake, warm clothing, well heated rooms and remedial treatment when the painful crises may necessitate hospital admission or day-and-night nursing at home.
      I could spend some time describing how all this affects not only the children who suffer from the disorder but their parents and their siblings but, as one would expect with that degree of disability, the effects are also economic and social and impinge on the quality and continuation of family life. The family and the marriage may break up because of the instability brought into the situation by a child with that degree of suffering. Even if the attendance allowance were to be paid, its present level is inadequate. Nevertheless, there would be an element, particularly for children under two, of respite and care available to minimise the effect on the family—although I stress that it ought to be the job of the district health authority or local authority to provide proper 24-hour care for parents and children in that position.
      Let me describe a point that was raised in Committee to illustrate the continuation of care that is needed for those who suffer from such conditions as thalassemia major. One of the ways to alleviate the condition partially is by using a drug called, I believe, Desferal, but that drug must be administered over an eight or 10-hour period, several times a week, to children — particularly very young infants—with a hypodermic needle inserted in the stomach overnight. That necessitates the parent constantly getting up to check not only that the baby is all right, but that the needle has not worked itself free from the stomach.
      That seems to me to satisfy all the criteria — even with the Government's extended restrictions—for those who need constant supervision. From the age of two, the child — or, rather, the parent — would receive the necessary financial assistance, but the problem is occurring now, and it does not start at the age of two.
      It would have been possible, even with the time allocated to tonight's debate, to give a wider range of examples of the problems experienced by the families of a few thousand children in this country who are so severely disabled and face such serious problems that that minor amount of money—£33.00 a week, from April—could provide some degree of alleviation. I trust that my comrades who speak later in the debate will be able to give further examples. However, there has been no serious attempt in the past decade and a half to change the law, and there has been no attempt during the Committee stage to justify the Government's position.
      I hope that I am not stealing the remarks of my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, South (Ms. Primarolo), who pointed out that no research had been undertaken to justify the Government's decision that the allowance should start at the age of two. We are discussing children in whom the diagnosis can be made — because of a disorder in the blood, or because of the severity of their physical or mental disability from birth — that their problems will be with them for the rest of their lives, which in many cases are tragically short. There can be no
      218
      justification for the Government not to be prepared to cough up a minimal amount such as £17 million to aid the families of such children.
      Vicky and Alex were here today. Some hon. Members may have seen them. Certainly, I hope that more publicity will be given to their case in the days ahead. Peter and Sandra, who raised this case, and the children's grandparents, recognised when they first approached me in the autumn of last year that March, when they would be two years old, was probably too early for a change in the law. But they have put themselves out to ensure that other families do not have to undergo, in the months and years ahead, the trauma that they have had to suffer in bringing up their children.
      If the Minister and his hon. Friends wish this evening to give some reality to the talk of people being returned to the community, and of the Tory party being the party of the family, they will act tonight. If they wish to give some reality — admittedly, this is a slightly extraneous point—to the view that I expect to hear on Friday, 22 January, when we debate a private Member's Bill on the curtailment of the age limit on abortion, that, following an amniocentesis test at 18 or 20 weeks or later, it is wrong for a foetus to be terminated because it may turn out to have a severe physical or mental disability — if Tory Members care so much about young bairns with disabilities — they will help their families tonight by extending the £33.00 a week attendance allowance to those under two.
      I hope that, when we divide the House, we shall have not only the solid assistance of 149 Labour comrades who have corresponded with me over the Christmas recess and promised me their support, but that of some of the Tory Members who have listened to tonight's debate.
      8.15 pm
      Mr. Boswell: The House will be familiar with the lot of a Conservative Back Bencher on a Standing Committee. I had the pleasure of serving on the Social Security Bill Committee. It could be encapsulated in the words of Thomas Hobbes: nasty, brutish and short. If we leave aside the nastiness and the brutishness — although certainly some of the sufferings of which we have heard are indeed nasty and brutish for the families concerned—it is still true that, whichever party happens to form the Government, speeches from Government Back Benchers tend, remarkably, to be short. Nevertheless, students of body language who attended the Committee sittings will have noticed a tendency on my part, if not on that of others, to sympathise with the position advanced tonight. Those of us who are parents of healthy children are bound to feel considerable sensitivity and sympathy on behalf of the children and parents whom we meet to whom that does not apply, and who face dreadful problems.
      While I have some sympathy with the new clause, I must tell the House that I do not propose to vote for it. I should like, however, to put down one or two markers. My first, and major, reason is that I find it rather remarkable, and a shade distasteful, that a position on attendance allowance that obtained throughout the period of Labour Government is now being raised, because it is a cause that naturally attracts human sympathy, to the character of a political stunt.
      Mrs. Beckett: Does the hon. Gentleman recognise first that—sadly, in my view—it is now nearly 10 years since

      219
      a Labour Government were in office; and, secondly, that nothing would have given us greater pleasure than to be in a position as a Labour Government to carry out precisely this measure? I am 100 per cent. certain that, as an Opposition Back Bencher, the hon. Member would have received a quite different hearing from me, or from anyone else in the position of Minister for Social Security, from that which, sadly, we expect from the Conservative Benches tonight.
      Mr. Boswell: I am grateful for the hon. Lady's comments. However, she will be surprised to learn that, even as a new Member, I know enough not to dive into the realms of the hypothetical. I can, however, record that that was the position under the previous Administration. That was a few years ago, and we hope that matters will improve, but we find what is happening tonight remarkable.
      It is perhaps part and parcel of the tactics that have been deployed on the Standing Committee, and on other occasions, by the Opposition that the cost of this change is relatively small. The figure that I pencilled in was £13 million. I understand from the Minister that it is now some £17 million—although, as those of us who have worked in advising Government in previous capacities know, even £10 million, or indeed, £1 million, is fought over in departmental budgets nowadays.
      If we had a self-denying ordinance from the Opposition that this was the one area in which they were prepared to interest themselves, and that they would, as the Americans say, major on it, that might be one thing. But when it is accompanied by all other issues with which I have much less sympathy — what may be termed consistent, constant and strident ululation, together with the ruthless clocking up of the taximeter of cost—I part company with the Opposition.
      During the Committee stage, I busied myself by attempting to keep some record of the overall costs. I found that the cost of the seven items that I could identify exceeded an additional £700 million a year. When I added the uncosted or unquantifiable items, the figure was well over £1 billion a year. What is proposed tonight on that narrow issue must be seen in the context of the general commitment to what I can only call irresponsibility.
      The other reason why I have reservations about the new clause is that I believe that there is sense in not merely following the present practice with attendance allowance. We should be looking, as the Government are looking, at the whole aspect of disability. I say that not to put it off, but to try to achieve the right solution. It is easy for us to consider distressful situations that apply to children and say, "Let's do something about them. What's the most obvious and available measure we can adopt? Let's do it." That may not be the right way to proceed and I will explain why.
      I want to consider the specifics of the issue. I listened with great care to the debate in Committee and to the Minister's sensitive reply to the points.
      Mrs. Beckett: Rubbish.
      Mr. Boswell: I am sorry that the hon. Lady feels that that is rubbish. I seem to remember that at the time the Minister was treated with respect because he went out of his way — and he can speak for himself on this — to respond sensitively to the points that were made.
      220
      The Minister said in Committee that he would have to respond to these points and consider how to deal with them later. First, he will have to consider whether it is possible reliably to assess those children not just before the age of 24 months, but, in practice, before 18 months as there will be a six months waiting period. Further, is it possible to assess a sufficient proportion of those children not to create an undesirable degree of difference of treatment between one class and another? If it is possible to produce a reasonably satisfactory assessment formula so that children can be assessed before the age of 18 months so that attendance allowance can be paid by the age of two years or before, no one would be more pleased than I. I hope that the Minister will consider seriously whether that can be achieved. A situation in which only a handful of cases might be so assessable and which many others would follow later might be invidious.
      I know that the Minister spent some time in Committee in considering the next point. Even if an assessment can be made—and I feel instinctively that it could be arid we could perhaps over the years consider reducing the age —would it be possible to make a practical distinction about the level of extra care required for people in that position? I hope and believe that it would be possible to isolate some cases where one could clearly see that extra care was required as the needs were greater. We should then meet such cases in due course.
      Finally, as attendance allowance is treated frequently as the passport to other benefits or available facilities, even if the final decision is not to opt for attendance allowance in those cases, will the Minister consider whether some way can be found to achieve a passport system for those children? I very much agree with the hon. Member far Coventry, South-East (Mr. Nellist) on that point. It is clear to all hon. Members who have heard the debates and considered the matter that there are many cases of distress. We are grateful as parents that most of us have been spared such cases. We would like to help those people involved. In the sense of the debates that have taken place, I want the Government to consider those matters as matters of the highest priority, if not tonight, then in future.
      Mr. Dafydd Wigley: I am glad to follow the hon. Member for Daventry (Mr. Boswell) on this matter. This debate is similar to a fairly long debate that we had in Committee, although the wording of the new clause is different. I am glad that we have had an intervention from the Conservative Benches. The Committee stage would have been more worthwhile had it been possible to have a proper debate across the Floor of the Committee. Conservative Members were clearly bound and gagged by their Whips and did not take any constructive part in the debate.
      The hon. Member for Daventry has made valid points and it is worthwhile for me to attempt to respond to them. First, he said that it was not reasonable to consider the matter because the Labour Government had not considered it 10 years ago. The fact that the Labour Government did not consider it is no reason why the Conservative Government or a future Labour Government should not consider it. If the Conservative Government were to restrain themselves to doing only what Labour Governments have done in the past,

      221
      presumably Conservative Members would not agree with everything that their Government were doing. The hon. Gentleman's argument was very superficial.
      He allied with that point the cost of the total proposals put forward in Committee for improving the lot of disabled people and others. He said that it was approximately £1 billion. Yes, that is a lot of money, but it is only about half of what would be produced by reducing income tax from 27p to 25p in the pound. At a time when that is being actively canvassed and discussed, I should have thought that a reasonable alternative use of those resources—even if not what the hon. Gentleman called "economically responsible"—would certainly have a social responsibility far in excess of its economic cost. Indeed, the small element of £20 million for those children out of £1,000 million is money well spent. Even if the rest of the package is expensive and unacceptable, that is no reason for cutting out the one element which may appeal to the hon. Gentleman. Therefore, I reject his argument on that point as well.
      The hon. Member for Daventry referred to the need to assess below the age of 18 months and said that there is a danger of discrimination. Of course there is a danger of discrimination. However, discrimination exists now against everyone below the age of two who may well be clearly in need of assistance, and if there were criteria at all, those children would fall within them.
      The new clause deals with discrimination. We are currently discriminating against people who clearly should receive some kind of assistance. There are many people over the age of two, including the elderly, whose condition is nothing like as severe as that of some children to whom reference has been made today. It would have been a lesser discrimination to have an ability to pay an allowance before the age of two against a set of criteria. That set of criteria may need to be slightly different because of the kind of children we are talking about and because of the normal pattern of "expected burden" of any children below the age of two. However, surely it is as possible to produce a set of guidelines for those circumstances as it is to produce guidelines for older people. After all, people aged 80, 90 or 100 may be expected to need care and attendance allowance is paid in those circumstances. It should also be practically possible to pay such an allowance for those under the age of two.
      The hon. Member for Daventry said that, even if it was possible to make an assessment, it would be difficult to determine the need for extra care. With respect, that question arises in all cases of attendance allowance. No one type of care is needed. Circumstances vary from category to category. We all have constituents who receive attendance allowance and we are pleased about that, although sometimes we think that their cases may be marginal. Others patently need the allowance.
      The hon. Member for Daventry said that he was going to make four points, yet I have commented on five that he made. He referred to the passport question. I accept that if there were other ways of getting a passport to other benefits including invalid care allowance which may be passported by attendance allowance, that would be a way out of the hon. Gentleman's argument. However, we are not considering them tonight. We are debating a new clause to try to ensure that we make provision for those
      222
      children below the age of two who place an extra cost and burden on their parents way beyond the normal responsibility of minding children at that age.
      We won the argument in Committee overwhelmingly. In fact, there was not a lot of argument because the Minister agreed with us half the time. I suspect that we will win the argument tonight. I want to remind the Minister briefly of the points rehearsed in Committee which have not been adequately answered. I believe that the Minister acknowledges that extra costs are involved. Therefore, it is a question of getting a mechanism to help parents. There are also extra burdens for the parents of children below the age of two if there is a disability in that when that disability is first diagnosed—and that is likely to be around the age of one — parents will be going backwards and forwards on day trips to hospitals and will incur considerable extra costs. At a later stage they may have some stability in looking after their children, but at the point of diagnosis when they are uncertain about how to cope the extra cost can be even greater than it will be later.
      The Minister did not respond in Committee to the question of how there could be objective attendance allowance assessment for older people. If the needs of older people who qualify for attendance allowance can be taken as a barometer, surely it must be possible to devise a system to meet the needs of those below the age of two.
      8.30 pm
      In Committee we dealt with the issue of community care, or the lack of it. The hon. Member for Coventry, South-East (Mr. Nellist) mentioned the absence in many areas of services that give adequate support to parents with disabled children below the age of two. If those services are not available through the local authorities or the area health authorities, the least that we can do is to give them some flexibility to buy into those services by having such resources. We are not talking about an enormous sum of money, or an enormous departure from principle. We are talking about an area in which at the moment the Government are not looking very bright. I should have thought that, in the case of young disabled children below the age of two, the Government would seek a way forward in which their performance could be seen to be a little more creditable than it has been recently. On that basis, I suggest that the new clause be accepted.
      Mr. Lewis Stevens: I had not recognised how serious and sad was the case of many young children until that of Mr. and Mrs. Storer and their twins occurred in my constituency, about which the hon. Member for Coventry, South-East (Mr. Nellist) has reminded the House. It was so tragic for those parents to be sure at that early stage that they would have difficulties with their children almost from birth and for many years to come, with little likelihood of any substantial relief or improvement.
      Like other people, I consider children and babies to be problems for any parents. It is not easy for all parents for several months. Outsiders do not readily recognise that children may have physical or mental difficulties. When one looks a little more deeply into the real difficulties which such parents must undergo, one realises that almost from the moment that those children arrive home there can be no normal family life. The family is committed to providing children or babies with the basic necessities—feeding them, looking after them, playing with them and

      223
      enjoying them—but to disabled children they must be totally committed, which prevents the family from having any normal relaxation.
      With babies, at least one can relax for an hour or two when they are in bed. In the sad case of Mr. and Mrs. Storer and their children, there is little opportunity for the family to relax unless someone else takes over. That is when there is need for an attendance allowance. It would provide some relief for the family and enable it to have some physical and mental relaxation and carry on a normal life. They need some recreation so that they can give that tremendously full commitment to their children.
      In general, there is an age limit of 18 months plus six months, or two years. It is easy to see how such an arrangement could come about. If one examined statistics and drew a distribution curve to show how difficulties with children come into that curve, one would see that many ailments, illnesses and disabilities are recognised at about 12 months. At that stage it is certain that those disabilities really exist and will continue. In cases such as that of Mr. and Mrs. Storer, those disabilities were recognised when the babies were in hospital, and certainly as soon as they came home there was little doubt. A very well qualified consultant, a lady who does not exaggerate and who does not unnecessarily alarm people, even politicians, as some doctors may do — she is a very realistic and understanding person—said that from a very early stage it was possible to know that those children would undergo physical and mental disabilities which would create problems for the family.
      We must look for a way to give support to such families from the earliest possible time. That time may be a few weeks or a few months after they are born. Perhaps we should apply a rule of six months, as we do for the attendance allowances, as that would still bring the time available for payment well forward of two years. We should consider that.
      The hon. Member for Coventry, South-East spoke about the availability of support, whether through attendance allowance or other support. Help should be available directly when those families take the babies home. In my constituency case I had the impression that help was not quickly forthcoming. It was not easy for the parents to find out that help was available.
      Even if it is a matter of attendance allowance, one must look at similar cases and different disabilities and ensure that there is medical or social help automatically available to those families and that at an early stage there is somewhere for them to turn to. There are many services available in Britain. I shall not make any political point about how good or bad they are, but they are available. Yet it is not easy to say where help should come from for such families at the time mentioned by the hon. Member for Caernarfon (Mr. Wigley), the age at which the diagnosis first comes about. Families are taking their children to the hospital to find out about their disabilities. Once they have been properly diagnosed and confirmed, some action can be taken and some procedure put in place to look after those children. But until that time, those weeks and months are desperate times and families have more concern during the time of uncertainty than when the diagnosis is confirmed and they recognise that they have practical difficulties.
      I raised that point on Second Reading, partly in the hope that as the Bill went through Committee the matter would be debated. I was not able to serve on the Standing
      224
      Committee, but I am sure from the words of the hon. Member for Coventry, South-East that it was debated. Indeed, there was sympathy from the Government Benches for an improvement in help—perhaps., through the attendance allowance. It is obvious from that there will not be a Government amendment stating what changes should be made.
      I shall be interested to hear my hon. Friend the Minister's response. The new clause seeks to ensure that a family receives support from an early stage and that is right. However, I understand that it may well cause problems in its practical application and in providing adequate support in different cases. My hon. Friend might suggest that various reviews are taking place to try to define more precisely the needs of disabled people in general which may also cover the needs of young children and that the objective of the new clause may be achieved better at a later stage in the Bill or in a subsequent Bill.
      Such explanations I shall listen to. However, I hope that my hon. Friend will be able to say that the Government intend to provide cover for the type of cases to which I and the hon. Member for Coventry, South-East have referred and the many others that might exist. I hope that he will say that the Government intend to review support available both in the form of attendance allowances and by other means, and to bring forward measures to assist such cases at an appropriate point.
      My hon. Friend the Member for Daventry (Mr. Boswell) spoke about a time when that might happen, and I hope that it will be in months, not years. I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will reassure me that the Government intend in the near future to introduce measures to provide full and proper support for families with children under two years of age as soon as their disabilities are properly diagnosed. If he does, it may well be that I can support the Government, and not the new clause. Without such an assurance, I shall be tempted to support the clause.
      Ms. Primarolo: I want to try to answer some of the points that have been made and to draw the debate back to the essential problem that the new clause seeks to address.
      It is regrettable that the h on. Member for Daventry (Mr. Boswell) sought to introduce financial considerations and to calculate how much the Opposition proposals added up to. He may not need reminding, but I shall do so all the same, that each amendment is voted upon individually and he can support this proposal without supporting all the others, although obviously we would wish him to do so. Parents with disabled children do not want sympathy from the House. Sympathy is not enough. Understanding is not enough. It is cheering, but it does not help them.
      The hon. Member also asked whether we need some complicated formula to work out whether a child under two requires an attendance allowance. Such a formula already exists in the Bill to work out how everybody else qualifies for an attendance allowance.
      Mr. Boswell: Will the hon. Lady accept that the issue is not whether there is a formula in being, but whether it is appropriate to the special situation and the areas of uncertainty which were rightly identified in Committee in the assessment of the need for and the level of special care for such children? That is the issue on which we await the Minister's reply.
      8.45 pm
      Ms. Primarolo: I do not remember the Minister addressing that point in Committee. My hon. Friend the Member for Coventry, South-East (Mr. Nellist) referred to the proposed changes to the Abortion Act 1967 and the fact that it is possible to diagnose hereditary diseases and severe abnormalities before birth. It is possible to work out from that whether a child will require more care than a normal able-bodied child under two.
      It is obviously correct that a Labour Government allowed the age bar. It should not have done so, and I hope that the Labour party is now big enough to admit that and to say that the next Labour Government will change it. Comments were made in the previous debate on child benefit about the value that our society places on children and on understanding their needs. I hope that that is greater now than it was 10, 15 or 20 years ago.
      This matter was raised with me by my constituents in September of last year and I wrote to the Minister to ask why there was an age bar. The age bar says that even if a child has all the disabilities that would qualify him for an attendance allowance at the age of three, if he is under two, he is disqualified. That age bar has nothing to do with an assessment of a child's needs. The Minister said that clearly in his reply to me of 14 September when he said:
      "Unfortunately, a line has to be drawn somewhere."
      It is an arbitrary line for a cut-off date.
      The other main plank of the Government's argument has been that it must be proved that a disabled child under two requires care substantially in excess of that required by a normal child under two. I asked the Library to find out whether any research has been done on the care needed by a child with an inherited disorder or severe disability compared with a so-called normal child under two. There has been no such research. There has been research and statements on the care needed by a so-called normal child and there has been research on disabled children, but no comparison has been made. There has been no evaluation of the differences. The Government have taken refuge exclusively behind the barrier that all two-year-olds require substantial care.
      I am sure that those hon. Members who are parents understand clearly the problems of lack of sleep caused by a child who is under two who does not want to sleep through the night. It may be rather like discussing matters here late at night. [HON. MEMBERS: "Much worse."] At least there is the pleasure of one's children and the knowledge that they will grow up into decent members of our society. Such satisfaction is not always the outcome of debates in the Chamber. Indeed, the Opposition have won only one vote so far, and that was in relation to the Post Office.
      The basis of the Government's argument is that all children under two require the same amount of care. Therefore, we need to demonstrate that that is not the case. We do not particularly want to read out the endless horror stories of those children and their parents but we must underline the fact that caring for such a child is not the same as caring for a normal under-two-year-old.
      I shall give the general outline of a letter that I received about a child born with a hereditary disease which meant that it did not have all its skin. Sufferers from that disease have varying amounts of skin on different parts of their body. Parts of their skin are very thin and are likely to break and blister. It is an extremely painful illness. Those
      226
      who have had to change nappies can imagine the problems of a child suffering from that disease when it is very young and still requires nappies.
      The parents in question wrote to me about their daughter who, unfortunately, lived for only 12 weeks. She had only 30 per cent. of the normal amount of skin. She was in great pain and needed much care. Both parents stayed at home, which put an immense emotional strain on them, especially as they did so in the sure knowledge that the child would die. After eight weeks the parents simply could not cope any longer with the strain of caring for that child 24 hours a day and had to resort to having her put back into hospital care. They did not have the necessary support to relieve them from the exhaustion and deprivation that they were suffering. It seems to me that that experience is not the same as caring for a normal 12-week-old baby. There is a world of difference. The condition is medically known. It can be diagnosed and its effects are known. Age is not a problem in that case.
      The work of OSCAR on sickle cell anaemia has been referred to. It is an inherited disease and the symptoms of those suffering from it are well charted. The crises of that illness are particularly acute in children of two and under and drugs have to be administered to those children throughout the night. The crises occur about every six weeks or so and last for several weeks and the child will be in extreme pain and discomfort during that period. Naturally that is reflected in its behaviour. Clearly, caring for such a child is not the same as caring for a child under two who is teething and in pain.
      The Government persist in hiding behind a barrier that is totally transparent. They say that they cannot assess the difference between looking after a severely disabled child, and the impact of known inherited diseases on such children, and giving the care and support that a normal child under two requires. The conclusion that I draw from that is that they are mostly men, who have little experience of looking after children and little understanding of the constant demands placed on parents. Therefore, they can say in complete astonishment that they have never thought of the continuous help and care that a disabled child under the age of two would require. Indeed, they have never really thought about how much care a normal child under two needs.
      The new clause forces the debate by asking, "Why do we need an age bar at two, which excludes families from claiming attendance allowance despite the social, economic and personal strains that caring for such a child puts on them?". Why do we need the age bar when we can assess the illness and when we can assess whether or not an attendance allowance is necessary under the legislation already? It is already difficult to qualify for such an allowance. As there is already a method of assessing diseases, and medical opinion that can forecast their progress, why do the Government persist in keeping the two-year age bar? The answer must be meanness, lack of understanding of the care of children and especially of the care that needs to be given to children who are physically or mentally disabled—who have inherited diseases, who are born with spina bifida, who suffer a stroke at birth or who have cleft palates and who need additional care, over and above the care needed by any other two-year-old.
      I have attempted to clarify the purpose of the new clause. I sincerely hope that Conservative Members will now say that there is no logical or moral reason why the two-year bar should remain. I hope that they will join us

      227
      in saying that, while it is regrettable that previous Administrations, of whatever political colour, have failed to address that point, we shall put it right tonight and ensure that the parents receive at least some support, albeit not enough, in recognition of the difficulties that they face in trying to keep their families together and care for their children.
      Mr. James Arbuthnot: I speak from a position of great luck because I am the father of a 20-month-old child who is healthy and normal. Frankly, the demands of my son are incessant. He needs constant watching, worrying over and caring for, because a 20-month-old son is an extraordinary phenomenon. As his father, I have had to think of 40 different ways in which a lunatic might commit suicide and then prevent him from doing so.
      The Government have decided, I believe rightly, that the constant demands made on parents of any child under the age of two are never-ending. They have also admitted — as I admit — that in practice the parents of handicapped children sometimes have greater needs than the parents of normal children, and that those needs are unmet. However, it becomes much easier to assess those needs when the child is about two—as well as the extra time taken by the parents and the extra costs that they incur in meeting the needs. Inevitably, the younger the child the harder it is to assess its needs. The matter cannot be looked at in terms of black and white. It must he a question of balance, as must everything that is discussed in this Chamber.
      The hon. Member for Caernarfon (Mr. Wigley) was right: it is no argument to say that a previous Labour Government decided that the age limit of two years should be in place, and that therefore this Government must be right. As I have said, the issue is not black and white. However, there is an argument for saying that the previous Labour Government had to weigh up the various different and competing claims on resources and the various different and competing ways of targeting those resources, and that they came to the same conclusion as this Government.
      9 pm
      Mrs. Beckett: I know that the hon. Gentleman was a member of the Committee and that he listened to some of the debates, but I remind him of a point made by the Minister— that once the age limit had been introduced at an early stage during the introduction of attendance allowance, the issue of the age limit was hardly raised and has not been considered from that time to this. It is not the case, as the hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friend the Member for Daventry (Mr. Boswell) have said, that the matter had been considered and rejected by a Labour Government. The initial age limit has not been seriously questioned until now. It is regrettable and terrible that it has not been questioned, but that is not an argument for not questioning it now.
      Mr. Arbuthnot: Although I am grateful for that intervention, the hon. Member does not appreciate that the imposition of an age limit requires a positive step. In my view, the positive step to impose that age limit was correct because of the incessant demands that are made on the parents of any two-year-old child.
      It is inevitable that resources are limited and, therefore, that those resources must be targeted in one way or
      228
      another. The way in which those resources are targeted must be a matter of judgment and balance. It is not always possible for a Government to satisfy every unmet need, and it would not necessarily be right for a Government to do so.
      My hon. Friend the Member for Daventry referred to the fact that the Government are examining the whole system of attendance allowances that are paid to disabled people. It is better to examine those attendance allowances as a whole and for that to be clone in the light of the survey of disabled people which is being carried out by the Office of Population Censuses and Surveys, and which is expected later this year. It is also better that the matter be considered in the light of the study of community care that is being performed by Sir Roy Griffiths. When attendance allowances are dealt with, it is necessary that the final conclusion reached by the House is the right conclusion.
      Nobody could deny the effectiveness of the speech by the hon. Member for Bristol, South (Ms. Primarolo). However, because of the review that is coming this year, the decision must be the right one. It is also necessary that attendance allowances are not looked at—
      Ms. Primarolo: What review is the hon. Gentleman talking about?
      Mr. Arbuthnot: I refer to the review that is being carried out by the Office of Population Censuses and Surveys. Its survey of disabled people is expected later this year.
      Ms. Primarolo: That is a general study of disability arid does not address specifically the question that we have raised in the new clause—the position of under-two-year olds and babies—for exactly the same reasons that the age bar exists in the first place.
      Mr. Arbuthnot: That is precisely the point that I am making. It is a general study. Because the position of disabled people is a matter which must be considered as a whole, that is the more sensible way of dealing with this issue, rather than by the new clause—
      Mr. Nellist rose—
      Mr. Boswell rose—
      Mr. Arbuthnot: I have given way five or six times in my speech already. I would rather wind up my speech by reminding hon. Members that it is not only the attendance allowances which are available to disabled people—
      Mr. Nellist rose—
      Mr. Arbuthnot: No, I shall not give way. I have done so six times already.
      It is not only attendance allowances which are available to disabled people, because the allowances are only one of a whole range of services that are also available—
      Mr. Nellist: Will the hon. Gentleman give way? lie said nowt for two months in Committee, so will he give way now?
      Mr. Speaker: Order.
      Mr. Arbuthnot: There is a specific responsibility on local authorities and on health authorities to help those families which have disabled children. That help can take the form of the provision of equipment, home helps arid nursing facilities for other children in the family, among other things.
      Therefore, the balance is difficult to strike—
      Mr. Nellist rose—
      Mr. Speaker: Order.
      Mr. Arbuthnot: The balance is difficult to strike, but in this case I believe that the Government's conclusion, which coincides with the last—
      Mr. Nellist: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
      Mr. Speaker: Order. I heard the hon. Gentleman say that he was not giving way.
      Mr. Arbuthnot: It is a difficult balance to strike, but I believe that the Government's conclusion, which is the same as that arrived at by the last Labour Government, is the correct one.
      Mr. Nellist rose—
      Mrs. Wise: While sitting through the debates on the Social Security Bill in Committee, I used to wish that Conservative Members would speak out. I believed that, once they had heard speeches such as those made by my hon. Friends the Members for Coventry, South-East (Mr. Nellist) and for Bristol, South (Ms. Primarolo), they would have to think the same thoughts as I was thinking. Any human being would have done so. I heartily believed that, if they would only throw off the discipline of the Whip and speak, all would be revealed.
      Now, I am so shocked at the revelation of the depths of their total lack of comprehension of the problems facing so many people that I regret that they have spoken. I regret having had my illusions shattered. I would rather believe that Conservative Members were bound and gagged by the Whips than that their sensibility and understanding was so limited.
      The hon. Member for Wanstead and Woodford (Mr. Arbuthnot) talked about his child of 20 months needing constant attention. I have a grandchild of 16 months, who of course needs constant attention and supervision. He climbs and is apt to fall over. But there is all the difference in the world between adventureness which requires supervision, with all the joy and laughter that accompany that period of life, and the complete helplessness and sadness occasioned by severe sickness and disability described by my hon. Friends. Possibly, if there were more women Members, even Conservative Members would show more understanding, although I cannot guarantee that, given the shattering of my illusions tonight.
      I am sorry that we do not have the same level of attendance in this debate as we had for the child benefit debate earlier. Many more hon. Members were willing to come and talk about the needs of normal families. I welcomed them and took part in that debate, but it is a great pity that those who do not .have such force of numbers behind them and do not wield so many votes cannot count on such a turnout. I deeply regret that.
      All the arguments that have been used against the new clause tonight could be used equally well against any attendance allowance. We have heard that it is difficult reliably to assess the need. That is at least as— if not more—true of adults. Medical opinions differ about the needs of adults. Some doctors say that an attendance allowance should be given, some that it should not. We do not use that genuine difficulty as a reason for not having an attendance allowance. But when it is a matter of babies, for some reason every judgment must be perfect and the balance must be so delicately attuned that we must never take the risk of tipping it in favour of children or their parents.
      230
      I would rather some attendance allowances were given and later withdrawn because the children improved. Unfortunately, in most of these cases, death will be the only relief for the children and their parents. For this House to refuse to give any help that we can to parents of such children is diabolical and monstrous. The House of Commons should be ashamed of itself tonight if it votes against this amendment.
      I can see that I shall have to follow the advice given by another hon. Member in Committee and study body language. Normally I do not interpret body language but listen to what people say. However, from the shuffles and wriggles of Conservative Members it is clear that they find some of my arguments uncomfortable. At this very minute I can see those arguments being shrugged off by those Members.
      When we debated child benefit, we were told of the huge expense that would be involved in upgrading it. We were told that it would cost a lot and that it was a blunt instrument. Indeed, one Conservative Member said that that benefit was sprayed all over. However, we are now talking about something that would be finely targeted—a delicate instrument. The allowance would go to about 10,000 of those families in this country who have suffered the misfortune of all misfortunes. Now we are told that the matter is too complex and that judgments might be made that were not absolutely correct.
      In Committee, the Minister — we are told he responded sensitively to the problem—said that the help given should be the right type of help. I do not think that giving an extra £31 or £32 to a family so that they can buy a bit of extra help or a bit of extra rest could possibly be the wrong help. I accept that there might be a whole list of things that should be done — some of those things may be dealt with at the moment, but inadequately—and it is right that they should be considered and voted upon. What we are being called upon to vote for tonight cannot possibly be regarded as the wrong type of help for any parent in such a position.
      I have heard about the OPCS survey regarding the extent of disability and the needs of the disabled. However, the hon. Members who have mentioned that survey have no knowledge—they certainly have not shared it with us — of any specific attempts to study the problems of disabled and severely sick babies. Such babies will be lumped in with other people.
      I believe that those children need extra, urgent attention. I happen to believe that, in this amendment, we are, if anything, being over modest. There will still be an age limit to qualify for the allowance. Those babies that die before the age of 12 weeks will not be covered by our amendment. Our amendment still means that those children would have to suffer for six months before they qualified. Therefore, the earliest age for benefit would be six months and it may well be that weeks would pass before it was understood that a claim could or should be made. As a result of that claim, an assessment would have to be carried out and therefore it would probably mean that few children under the age of one would get any benefit.
      Even though the amendment represents a small measure, it is still infinitely worth while. I do not know how hon. Members will sleep tonight if they deprive people of this benefit for the children. I hope that when the hon. Member for Wanstead and Woodford goes home tonight and looks at his 20-month-old child, he will think about

      231
      the mother struggling with twins who are unable to stand up unaided and who have to have an oxygen cylinder ready. That mother has to look out for those twins ceasing to breathe. She does not have to watch to see if they fall over and graze a knee, but to check that they have not ceased to breathe. The hon. Member for Wanstead and Woodford should look at his 20-month-old son and be thankful that he is not a candidate for the attendance allowance for which we are appealing tonight.
      We hear a great deal about sympathy. It has been said that the Minister responded sensitively in Committee and that sympathy poured from him. I am prepared to believe that he genuinely feels that sympathy, but it does not help parents for one minute. They face a burden that goes on minute by minute, hour by hour, 24 hours of the day; and mothers, in particular, face that burden. We could not take it from them. They have been plagued by nature with this dreadful catastrophe. We can only try to alleviate it a little at the edges. The Minister tells us that we may not be able reliably to assess every case, so one person may receive the allowance and another person may not, when they should both receive it.
      Words do not often fail me, as my hon. Friends know. I cannot understand how hon. Members, having had these matters brought to their attention, can then throw the argument back. I reiterate what my hon. Friend the Member for Derby, South (Mrs. Beckett) said. The Labour Government did not reject any such proposal. The matter was never considered during the 1970s.
      9.15 pm
      Mr. Simon Burns: Before you get carried away with self-righteous indignation, what did you do
      Mr. Speaker: Order. No "yous".
      Mr. Burns: I was wondering what the last Labour Government did from 1975 to 1979 to consider this matter and what the Labour party has done while out of office, if it feels so strongly about the matter.
      Mrs. Wise: The Labour Government were doing a few useful things, such as introducing mobility allowance and non-contributory invalidity benefit. Many of us were helping them with that.
      We did not know that there are 10,000 families in this position. They did not bring the problem to us. Presumably no Conservative Members knew about the problem when they were on the Opposition Benches, because they did not raise the matter. Nobody raised the matter. None of my constituents brought it to my attention. As the problem affects such a small minority of children, it is not surprising. Like the hon. Member for Chelmsford (Mr. Burns), I thought that all babies needed a lot of care, and that therefore the problem did not arise. However, we are aware of the problem now because we have been told about it by the people who suffer, so none of us has any excuse.
      Mrs. Alice Mahon: I raised this point in Committee on 17 November. I have worked for the Health Service for many years and have nursed such children. A change occurred in the care of these children. I asked the Minister how many beds had gone out of the National Health Service during those years. He gave me an answer which ran into thousands, so there are different trends. The Labour Government did not recognise the problem, but, although there is no excuse for that, there was a
      232
      different method of caring for children. We cared for children with severe handicaps in hospital. That trend has changed and that is a good argument for bringing forward this amendment.
      Mrs. Wise: My hon. Friend is quite right. I take the expression "righteous indignation", which tripped off the lips of the hon. Member for Chelmsford, not as a term of abuse, but as a compliment. Anybody who does not feel righteous indignation at the thought that this amendment might be rejected is deficient in humanity, and as a politician and human being. If the hon. Gentleman's constituents were aware of the facts, they would feel that too. I call on all hon. Members with a grain of humanity and a grain of common sense to acknowledge that there is no financial or moral justification for rejecting this amendment.
      Mr. Nellist: My hon. Friend the Member for Preston (Mrs. Wise) has listened carefully to the debate here and in Committee. It is interesting to note that the interventions from one or two Conservative Members, who sat silently in Committee, should be so derogatory. The only Conservative Member to speak in the debate tonight who has met one of these families—the Storer family — is the hon. Member for Nuneaton (M r. Stevens). He has been the only Tory Member to say that, unless the Minister gives an assurance that there will be some progress, he may support the Opposition. None of the Tory Members who have spoken this evening have gone to the 30 or 40 families in their constituency and asked the parents how they are coping. They are all speaking out of the back of their heads.
      Mrs. Wise: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for the intervention. I join the call for all hon. Members to vote for the amendment. There is little enough we can do. It would be shameful to refuse to do what little we can.
      Mr. Jacques Arnold: 1 should like to pay tribute to the members of the Standing Committee that considered the Bill, because the House has seen the kind of emotional tirade from the hon. Member for Preston (Mrs. Wise) that they have had to put up with day in and day out. We have had an emotional tirade time after time, when I would have thought the purpose of the Committee and the House was to consider dispassionately, but with heartfelt attention, the cases of fellow citizens such as those we have heard about tonight.
      Let us remember the background to the introduction of the attendance allowance that we are extending to the parents of children under the age of two. That allowance was introduced by a Conservative Government, who paid heed to the needs which were evident in those days, before the magnificent advances in medical science of recent years, when it was extremely difficult to distinguish between those youngsters who had a serious disability that would qualify for the attendance allowance and normal children. That was the reason the Conservative Government introduced the two-year limit, and presumably that was the reason why the succeeding Labour Government—of whom the hon. Member for Preston, the then Member for Coventry, South-West, was a part —did not raise the two-year limit, let alone change it. It is being considered now.
      In those days the number of cases of such youngsters was minimal, but thanks to advances in technology and

      233
      medical science, more children are surviving the weird and terrible conditions that afflict them, and they are the serious cases which hon. Members have quite rightly raised. The hon. Member for Nuneaton (Mr. Stevens) and other hon. Members have referred to cases which prove beyond a shadow of doubt that we should turn our attention to the thousands of children in this condition, because they are worthy of our support.
      Mr. Peter Thurnham: I ask my hon. Friend to consider the case of handicapped children in care who require fostering or adoption, because it is generally easier to find parents to adopt or foster younger children than older children. This bears out the argument that the need for care of young children is not as great as it is for older children. When funds are short, surely it is more important to provide funds to look after older children, about whom there is more concern and who cause more worry to parents, than to provide funds for younger children who do not require as much care.
      Mr. Arnold: My hon. Friend's point speaks for itself. It is all very well for Labour Members to bring in an amendment and make heart-rending speeches in an attempt to overcome in a superficial way what is a very real problem. I would rather that the Minister gave an undertaking that he will consider the problem and will bring together county council social services departments and local district health authorities to consider the problem of providing adequate support and relief for parents of disabled children under the age of two.
      Mr. Scott: It is not surprising, in discussing a subject that has so many emotional overtones, that strong feelings have been displayed this evening. We spent 10¼ hours in Committee in three long debates on attendance allowance. I know that all members of the Committee treated it with great seriousness and concern.
      Tonight, we return to the matter. Before I get into the main argument that I wish to put, I should like to say to the hon. Member for Coventry, South-East (Mr. Nellist) that he had a question answered today about the statistics and costs of the matter. I hoped that he would receive it before this debate, and I am sorry if he has not yet done so. I shall give the substance of the answer now, and it will be of some interest to the House.
      The hon. Gentleman will recall that in an answer given to him on 30 November 1987, we said that the advice we had was that an estimated 3,900 children currently become eligible at the age of two. Of those, 2,300 were at the higher rate and 1,600 were at the lower rate. Assuming that all those would start at the age of six months, no attempt was made to allow for awards running for only part of the financial year. The resulting estimate of a £17 million extra annual cost included £7·5 million for invalid care allowance and £0·5 million for income support child disablement premium. I emphasise that both of the estimates I am giving to the House now assume the continued application of the six-month qualifying period, that is to say, that no award would start before six months, and that is the basis of the assumption.
      We have been able to revise our estimates in the light of expert medical advice about children with severe disabilities from birth, who require attention substantially in excess of normal. We also take into account disabilities
      234
      that come to light subsequently, particularly during the second year of life. We estimate that there may be up to 3,000 under-twos who would qualify. They would probably divide fairly equally between the higher and lower rate allowance. Taking account of dispersal throughout the year of children coming into benefit on reaching the age of two, when they cease to be an extra cost, we estimate an extra annual cost of about £7 million. That takes account of £3·1 million for invalid care allowance and income support disablement premium of £200,000.
      Mr. Wigley: The Minister used a telling phrase in his explanation, which I am sure will be most helpful to the House. He spoke of children with needs that were "substantially in excess of normal". Is that not what the debate in Committee has been about, the inability to say whether such a group exists? If it does exist and it is possible to quantify it at 3,000, surely that is abundant evidence that the point behind the amendment should be accepted by the Government.
      Mr. Scott: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will allow me to continue. I wanted to clear up that point for the House, and particularly for the hon. Member for Coventry, South-East, who I anticipate will have had the answer in advance of this debate.
      Another point that the hon. Gentleman raised in his speech concerned entitlement to an orange badge, flowing from the attendance allowance. Technically speaking, it flows from mobility allowance, although I know that some local authorities operate the scheme on the basis that once a child reaches the age of two it is entitled to allowance and then the parents or other carers are entitled to an orange badge.
      Mr. Nellist: If we are unsuccessful this evening in convincing sufficient Conservative Members to support us on new clause 2, and in arranging for all under-twos to have attendance allowance, what can the Minister offer us now from the Dispatch Box on this small point about the passport to an orange badge? Will discretion be allowed so that local authorities can issue badges to the parents of under-twos, where need is identified, even where a child is not two years old and cannot qualify for attendance allowance, or is not five years old and cannot qualify for mobility allowance? Will the Minister offer at least that concession before we come to the meat of the new clause?
      9.30 pm
      Mr. Scott: I shall leave that to the end of my reply. If the hon. Gentleman wishes to intervene on any other matters, I shall be happy to give way, but we have had the debate in Committee. As I say, it was a long and serious debate and obviously a great deal of emotion underlay many of the contributions. As I promised in Committee, I have thought long and hard about the proposal that attendance allowance should be available for children under the age of two. I knew that this would be raised again on Report. I also believe that there was intrinsic importance about the discussion.
      Many points made in Committee caused my hon. Friend and myself to think seriously about the matter. So I went back to the Department because of the challenges put to me and asked for additional expert medical advice on the medical issues. As a result, I have a clearer idea of some aspects of the argument that perhaps I did not have in Committee. A lot of this depends on medical advice.

      235
      Lest I am arousing expectations that I shall not be able to fulfil when I conclude, I still believe for the moment that it would he wrong to include the proposal in the Bill at this time, but I hope to say something more constructive before I finish.
      The contribution of the hon. Member for Preston reached perhaps hysterical points but I understand the strength of her feeling. At one time she seemed to be talking as though attendance allowance was the only help available for parents with disabled children. Of course, a range of help is provided by the social services departments, health authorities and voluntary organisations for such families.
      Mrs. Wise: Does not that also apply to adults who receive attendance allowance? Do they not also qualify for other allowances?
      Mr. Scott: They may indeed. But listening to the hon. Lady one could have been persuaded that families who had the appalling misfortune to have a severely disabled child, with all the emotional and physical stress that that obviously puts on parents and other members of the family, were left helpless because they were not entitled to attendance allowance. The point I am making is that that is not true. Whatever the arguments may be for or against giving attendance allowance to disabled youngsters, the fact is that there is a range of help available to those families. It is right that we should remind ourselves of that.
      Mr. Bill Michie: The Minister has mentioned the range of help available through local authorities and social services. But many local authorities, such as Sheffield, are rate-capped and the pressure put on social services is far too great. Rate-capping makes the position worse, so the Minister cannot say that someone else should take care of the problem.
      Mr. Scott: On the other hand, the allocation for personal social services which has been agreed for the coming year, although not what local authorities might have wished but nevertheless generous, is certainly of a sufficient size for them to be able to agree to implement sections 5 and 6 of the Disabled Persons (Services, Consultation and Representation) Act 1986 whose author, as it were, is sitting on the Opposition Front Bench. Extra resources have been provided to social services and local authorities. It is not possible for Government to dictate to local authorities how they should spend the allocation. But certainly this range of services is provided by the vast majority of local authorities in this country.
      Mr. Tom Clarke: I am very grateful to the Minister for giving way. Despite earlier temptations, I had not intended to intervene because I think that this is a crucial discussion and I did not want to take away from the main focus of what seems to me to be a vital debate. But I am sure that the Minister did not wish to give the impression to the House that the whole of the 1986 Act had been implemented or that any one of the local authority associations is satisfied with progress so far. Can he clarify that point?
      Mr. Scott: If the hon. Gentleman had listened carefully he would have realised that I referred to sections 5 and 6 and said that we had enabled them to be implemented with the resources that we have made available for the coming year. We have said that the implementation of the rest of the Act will depend on the resources we are able to make
      236
      available in future. It is the clear intention that, as resources become available, we shall ensure that the whole of the Act is implemented.
      The main point that I am trying to make at the moment is that families which have this appalling experience are not left helpless. Local authorities have a responsibility to assess the needs of all families with children and to ensure that those needs are met. Health authorities have a responsibility to provide health services for all children, including those with special needs, and voluntary organisations provide health services which add to the volume of statutory services and widen the range and variety of response to people's needs.
      I know very well, and I recognised this in Committee, how the parents of handicapped babies find their practical burdens increased by the emotional strain of coming to terms with the handicap. I believe that it is vitally important that parents receive the right support and counselling to help them with this emotional strain. Many parents who find themselves in this situation speak very highly of the help which they are given by health authorities, hospitals, local authorities and voluntary organisations, many of which work on a self-help basis, and this helps families which find themselves in this situation to cope with both the practical burdens and the emotional strains involved.
      Mr. Wigley: The Minister will recall that in Committee I went into some detail about the fact that not only is there a need for these services but, over and above that, there is a real additional cost to the parents of disabled children and that cost is there from the very beginning. Will he address himself to that aspect?
      Mr. Scott: There are, of course, voluntary organisations that are able to help with that sort of thing, but I will recome to the point about attendance allowance in a moment. I just want to register the point that families in this situation have a range of help from a variety of sources —from the health services, local authorities, domiciliary services, and so on.
      Mr. Thurnham: I did not have the advantage of being on the Committee at an earlier stage, but I have heard a figure this evening of 10,000 Families, and the Minister has just quoted a figure of 3,000 families. My own research in Bolton would suggest that about 10 families each year have a severely handicapped child born to them, which would suggest that for the country as a whole there might be between 2,000 and 3,000 each year. I should be grateful if my hon. Friend would clarify the numbers.
      Mr. Scott: The figure will, of course, be in the Official Report tomorrow as a result of the answer I have given to the hon.Member for Coventry, South-East. It comes out at up to 3,000 children, assessing the total cost, bearing in mind that they come on for part of the year, and so on, at some £7 million. That includes both the ICA and the child disablement premium.
      I think that it is generally accepted that attendance allowance should be paid only in respect of those disabled children whose attendance needs exceed those of normal children of the same age. Giving statutory expression to that principle was one of the main purposes of the regulations which were made in 1971 at the outset of the attendance allowance scheme under the power which is

      237
      now contained in the 1975 Act. The age two threshold which this clause seeks to remove has similarly been enshrined in regulations since 1971.
      I am not making a party political point at all because there are people on both sides of the House who are concerned about this sort of issue.
      Given that this is enshrined in regulations—it is not in primary legislation, so people who wished to raise the matter or to have a debate need not have waited for an opportunity arising from primary legislation — I am surprised, I am even surprised at myself, that none of us spotted this and that it has not been raised earlier. But there has been no concerted pressure at all to amend this particular regulation before now. That is not to say that the Committee and the House are not entitled to use the opportunity of this Bill to bring the matter to public attention. I think I may have used a phrase—whether it was a wise one or not—about exploiting the fact that we had a Bill in order to raise this particular matter, but I did not use it in any pejorative sense. I understand why the Opposition, when we have a Bill of this sort, seize on a matter, bring it forward and have it discussed on its merits—merits which have changed over the years, not least because of the improvements in medical science and medical technology which have enabled many youngsters born with severe disability to survive, babies who would not have survived in the early years of attendance allowance.
      We can all understand the original rationale of the lower age limit. It was that healthy babies and infants required a lot of attention anyway and so it would be very difficult in practice to identify any substantial extra need for attention arising from disability. The age of two was chosen as the threshold because the important milestones of normal development occurring by the end of the second year meant that by that age any significant divergence from the pattern of increasing independence would have become apparent. But times change, and we must recognise that. Although this rationale remains true for many children who may grow up disabled, it has been overtaken by developments affecting other children. In particular, the continuing advances in medical and nursing care of babies with severe congenital abnormalities and birth trauma mean that more survive and are discharged into the care of their parents in the first year of life.
      The advice that I have received confirms that, as hon. Members argued in Committee, these babies have attendance needs which exceed those of a normal child. That is not to say that it is as easy to assess the needs of a baby as it is to assess those of a child over the age of two; there are still substantial difficulties involved in such a judgment. But it is clear that there is a group whose disabilities and needs it is possible to assess before the age of two. Perhaps it is because the hon. Member for Caernarfon (Mr. Wigley) recognised that this did not require primary legislation that he asked me in Committee to undertake a specific review of it and to
      "consider the issue in its own right at the appropriate time".—[0fficial Report, Standing Committee E, 19 November 1987; c. 82.]
      The recent medical advice that we have received and the conclusion from it that I have reported are obviously an important aspect but I do not think that they can be the absolute answer to the issue in this new clause before us
      238
      today. With the very substantial extension of invalid care allowance that we have seen, particularly since married women became eligible, we would have to consider the interaction of attendance allowance and invalid care allowance in the context of any extension to those below the age of two. Because it is intended as income maintenance for those who forgo the opportunity of employment to look after a disabled person, we would need to examine the merits of paying it to one parent, usually the mother, of a child when that parent might very well have given up work in any case.
      In essence, if we are to consider the extension of attendance allowance to youngsters under the age of two who have needs substantially in excess of those of a normal child, it is right to look at the interaction of attendance allowance and invalid care allowance, perhaps throughout childhood, and see what an appropriate pattern for that might be. We must look at those above the age of two as well as those below it to ensure that we have equitable and sensible arrangements for this sort of cash assistance to disabled children and their parents.
      9.45 pm
      I have a reply to the hon. Member for Coventry, South-East about local authorities and the orange badge scheme. Local authorities already have discretion to issue orange badges to disabled people who are not covered by the automatic entitlement criteria. I understand that my colleagues in the Department of Transport who are responsible for the scheme are conducting a review of it, and have sought comments and representations from responsible organisations. I am sure that they would welcome any representations by hon. Members about the operation of the scheme. Some authorities, I believe, operate the scheme, although some choose the mobility allowance and some go below the age to two. I see that I have the agreement of the hon. Member for Caernarfon.
      I mention the kind of issues that I think that it would be right for us to consider if we reviewed cash support for disabled children and their parents within the fairly narrow context of the existing benefits of attendance and invalid care allowances. I do not intend to speculate about what answers we might come up with if we engaged in that exercise, but, as my hon. Friends the Members for Wanstead and Woodford (Mr. Arbuthnot) and for Daventry (Mr. Boswell) mentioned, such narrow questions are about to be overtaken by the wider scrutiny of attendance allowances, along with other disability benefits, that will shortly be made possible by the results of the OPCS survey of disabled people and Sir Roy Griffiths' study of community care. They may well point to significant changes in the form of cash and other support for disabled people, including children and their parents, and we shall want to examine their reports with a great deal of care. Sir Roy Griffiths' report, due very soon, and the OPCS results later this year, will provide the material for a wider and better-informed debate about all these matters.
      If the hon. Lady is not willing to withdraw the new clause, I ask the House to reject it, but against the background of a recognition that support for the families of disabled children throughout the age range will now inescapably be part of the system.
      Mrs. Beckett: The tone of the Minister's reply was such that I feel confident that many hon. Members who have not followed the progress of the debate will believe that he

      239
      must have made some concession. I congratulate him on managing not to make such a concession while sounding as though he had.
      I accept that the Minister has now gone as far as saying that, in the context of the Griffiths report on community care and the OPCS survey of disability in all their aspects, the Government will look seriously at the position of disabled children. I shall do the Minister the justice of acknowledging that I have little doubt that he and, probably, his hon. Friend the Under-Secretary have been seriously dismayed by the observations and cases put to them in Committee, and will take the opportunity of those reviews to do what they can. Nevertheless, we have no firm date for either of those reviews; certainly the general survey of disability has been awaited for a considerable time. With some regret, I must say that it seems to me that all the Minister is saying is that at some time in the future —perhaps this year, perhaps next year or perhaps the year after—when the general survey of the needs of the disabled is made, he will look at such cases and perhaps act.
      At least we have heard from the Minister something that we did not hear from his hon. Friends whose views we did not have the benefit of hearing in Committee—although the members of the Committee who have spoken tonight were, I concede, present for most of the debate, which cannot be said for all Conservative Members. At least the Minister expressed an understanding that the debates in Committee and on the Floor of the House have been serious and thoughtful debates, dealing with serious and important issues of causing tremendous anxiety to the parents of children who are, by definition, very severely disabled, whether physically or mentally.
      At least in that respect, the contribution from the Government Front Bench is distinguished from that made by the hon. Members for Daventry (Mr. Boswell) and for Wanstead and Woodford (Mr. Arbuthnot) and indeed the comments made by the hon. Member for Chelmsford (Mr. Burns) whom I am not sure is in the Chamber any longer, so disgusted was he by the tone of the debate. Forgive me: how could I forget the contribution made by the hon. Member for Gravesham (Mr. Arnold)? He referred to what Conservative Members had to put up with in Committee. Apparently the hon. Gentleman does not like to listen to the problems of those who have to cope with severely mentally and physically handicapped children. My sympathy for him is considerably tempered by the recollection of the much greater problems faced by those who have to cope with those difficulties.
      From the comments made by those hon. Members, it appeared that they were trying to find excuses to explain why they were unable to vote with the Opposition tonight. I suspect that they were doing that because, against their will, they were much impressed by the arguments in Committee and on the Floor of the House on this issue. The hon. Member for Daventry differed from his hon. Friends in that he did not acknowledge that there had been a serious and thoughtful debate on this point. Instead, he made some silly and unjustified comments about the tone of the debate. He spoke about the other commitments which have been discussed. They were paltry and pathetic reasons for refusing to support a new clause that will extend the right to attendance allowance to children who now meet all qualifications for the award of that allowance other than the fact that they have not passed the age of two.
      240
      Comments were made from the Conservative Benches about superficial remarks and about hon. Members becoming too emotional about these matters. I do not know what we should get emotional about if it is not the sufferings and problems of children in those circumstances. It is outrageous for Conservative Members to suggest that, although of course they sympathise, owing to the tone of the debate they are unable to put that sympathy into action and vote in the Lobby in support of the new clause.
      Mr. Nellist: I apologise to my hon. Friend the Member for Derby, South (Mrs. Beckett) in case I pre-empt remarks that she is about to make. However, as the Chamber is fuller now I want to explain that my hon. Friend is referring to complaints made by Tory Members about the debate in Committee. Will she allow me, through her, to explain that we had more than 10 hours of debate in Committee and we have had more than two hours of debate tonight on this matter? Tempers on both sides of the House have rightly, in my view, risen high. We have heard from the Minister tonight that what we have argued about for nearly 13 hours concerns 3,000 children at a total allowance cost of £7 million. That is less than 20 per cent. of the cost of the crystal chandeliers and other adornments in the new DHSS headquarters in Whitehall. All that debate involved 3,000 children. That might open Tory Members' eyes and they might understand why we have been pushing the Minister. We cannot get the movement to help those 3,000 kids.
      Mrs. Beckett: My hon. Friend is right. I pay tribute to him, to my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, South (Ms. Primarolo) and to the hon. Member for Nuneaton (Mr. Stevens) for the way in which they have brought this issue to the attention of the House by raising constituency cases.
      I want to consider the remarks made by the hon. Member for Nuneaton. In a sense, he encapsulated the problem. He said that there is little doubt that in the case that has been brought to his attention in his constituency the children satisfy every criteria for the award of attendance allowance except the fact that it cannot be paid below the age of two. He spoke about the intention of the new clause being correct and he hoped that the Minister would be able to give him some words of support about the problems that prevented him from accepting the new clause or giving effect to it in other ways.
      In Committee we sought to give effect to the proposals made by the hon. Member for Nuneaton. We asked the Minister to give the assurance that a review on this point would be undertaken and that, if our proposals were not exactly the right way to proceed, whether he would make other proposals. All that he has told us is that we will have to await the results of the review into the disabled, which may take several years.
      The hon. Gentleman asked what reason the Government could give for not being able to agree with at least the principle of the new clause this evening. Again, I can tell the hon. Gentleman that in Committee the Minister said that it is somewhat difficult in some cases to get the test exactly right and it
      "would create considerable difficulties for the attendance allowance board."
      I have considerable respect and sympathy for the attendance allowance board, which has a difficult job to do, but my sympathy and respect for the board is far

      241
      outweighed by my sympathy and respect for people such as the parents who are his constituents who are having to struggle to look after severely disabled children and who are being told that they cannot have the allowance because it might be difficult for the board.
      My sympathy disappears when I look again at what the Minister said in Committee. He said:
      "it is possible in some cases to identify the need for the allowance before age two … under the age of 18 months … I do not dispute the fact that some children can be identified and assessed … The allowance must be paid at a point when attendance needs can be clearly discerned to be in excess of those required by non-disabled children."—[Official Report, Standing Committee E, 17 November 1987; c. 64–5.]
      But it is not so paid. It is not paid until the children reach the age of two, no matter how terrible their problems, no matter how great their difficulties and no matter how horrendous the struggles of their parents.
      Some Conservative Members have spoken with amusement, sneering even, about the emotions that have been aroused on the Labour Benches by the issues raised by the new clause. I am proud of the fact that such emotions have been raised. It was unworthy of the Minister to suggest that the real anger and outrage expressed by my hon. Friend the Member for Preston (Mrs. Wise) was hysterical.
      It would be no wonder if someone was driven to hysteria watching the antics of some Conservative Members this evening. This is an issue of real seriousness and importance for the families involved. It is one on which the Minister has not, no matter how much he sought to convey his sympathy, been able to tell us that he will be able to move and the Opposition have no hesitation in seeking to divide the House.
      Question put, That the clause be read a Second time:—
      The House divided: Ayes 225, Noes 310.

      Division No. 129]

      [9.56 pm

      AYES

      Adams, Allen (Paisley N)

      Caborn, Richard

      Allen, Graham

      Callaghan, Jim

      Alton, David

      Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

      Anderson, Donald

      Campbell-Savours, D. N.

      Archer, Rt Hon Peter

      Canavan, Dennis

      Armstrong, Ms Hilary

      Carlile, Alex (Mont'g)

      Ashdown, Paddy

      Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)

      Ashley, Rt Hon Jack

      Clay, Bob

      Ashton, Joe

      Clelland, David

      Banks, Tony (Newham NW)

      Clwyd, Mrs Ann

      Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)

      Cohen, Harry

      Barron, Kevin

      Cook, Robin (Livingston)

      Battle, John

      Corbett, Robin

      Beckett, Margaret

      Corbyn, Jeremy

      Beggs, Roy

      Cousins, Jim

      Bell, Stuart

      Cox, Tom

      Benn, Rt Hon Tony

      Crowther, Stan

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

      Cryer, Bob

      Bermingham, Gerald

      Cummings, J.

      Bidwell, Sydney

      Cunliffe, Lawrence

      Blair, Tony

      Cunningham, Dr John

      Blunkett, David

      Dalyell, Tarn

      Boateng, Paul

      Darling, Alastair

      Boyes, Roland

      Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

      Bradley, Keith

      Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)

      Bray, Dr Jeremy

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

      Brown, Gordon (D'mline E)

      Dewar, Donald

      Brown, Nicholas (Newcastle E)

      Dixon, Don

      Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)

      Dobson, Frank

      Buchan, Norman

      Doran, Frank

      Buckley, George

      Douglas, Dick

      242

      Dunnachie, James

      McWilliam, John

      Dunwoody, Hon Mrs Gwyneth

      Madden, Max

      Eadie, Alexander

      Mahon, Mrs Alice

      Eastham, Ken

      Marek, Dr John

      Evans, John (St Helens N)

      Marshall, David (Shettleston)

      Ewing, Harry (Falkirk E)

      Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

      Ewing, Mrs Margaret (Moray)

      Martin, Michael (Springburn)

      Fatchett, Derek

      Martlew, Eric

      Faulds, Andrew

      Maxton, John

      Fearn, Ronald

      Meacher, Michael

      Field, Frank (Birkenhead)

      Meale, Alan

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

      Michael, Alun

      Fisher, Mark

      Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)

      Flannery, Martin

      Michie, Mrs Ray (Arg'l & Bute)

      Flynn, Paul

      Millan, Rt Hon Bruce

      Forsythe, Clifford (Antrim S)

      Mitchell, Austin (G'f Grimsby)

      Foster, Derek

      Moonie, Dr Lewis

      Fraser, John

      Morgan, Rhodri

      Fyfe, Mrs Maria

      Morley, Elliott

      Galbraith, Samuel

      Morris, Rt Hon J (Aberavon)

      Galloway, George

      Mowlam, Marjorie

      Garrett, John (Norwich South)

      Mullin, Chris

      Garrett, Ted (Wallsend)

      Murphy, Paul

      Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John

      Nellist, Dave

      Godman, Dr Norman A.

      Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon

      Golding, Mrs Llin

      O'Brien, William

      Gordon, Ms Mildred

      O'Neill, Martin

      Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)

      Patchett, Terry

      Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

      Pendry, Tom

      Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

      Pike, Peter

      Grocott, Bruce

      Powell, Ray (Ogmore)

      Harman, Ms Harriet

      Prescott, John

      Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy

      Primarolo, Ms Dawn

      Haynes, Frank

      Quin, Ms Joyce

      Healey, Rt Hon Denis

      Radice, Giles

      Heffer, Eric S.

      Randall, Stuart

      Hinchliffe, David

      Redmond, Martin

      Hogg, N. (C'nauld & Kilsyth)

      Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn

      Holland, Stuart

      Reid, John

      Home Robertson, John

      Richardson, Ms Jo

      Hood, James

      Robertson, George

      Howarth, George (Knowsley hi)

      Robinson, Geoffrey

      Howell, Rt Hon D. (S'heath)

      Rogers, Allan

      Hoyle, Doug

      Rooker, Jeff

      Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

      Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

      Hughes, Roy (Newport E)

      Rowlands, Ted

      Hughes, Sean (Knowsley Si

      Salmond, Alex

      Hughes, Simon (Southwark)

      Sedgemore, Brian

      Hume, John

      Sheerman, Barry

      Illsley, Eric

      Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

      Ingram, Adam

      Shore, Rt Hon Peter

      Janner, Greville

      Skinner, Dennis

      John, Brynmor

      Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)

      Jones, Barry (Alyn & Deeside)

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

      Jones, leuan (Ynys Môn)

      Smith, Rt Hon J. (Monk'ds E)

      Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S W)

      Snape, Peter

      Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

      Soley, Clive

      Kinnock, Rt Hon Neil

      Spearing, Nigel

      Kirkwood, Archy

      Steinberg, Gerald

      Lambie, David

      Stott, Roger

      Lamond, James

      Strang, Gavin

      Leadbitter, Ted

      Straw, Jack

      Leighton, Ron

      Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

      Lestor, Miss Joan (Eccles)

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

      Lewis, Terry

      Thomas, Dafydd Elis

      Litherland, Robert

      Thompson, Jack (Wansbeck)

      Livingstone, Ken

      Turner, Dennis

      Lofthouse, Geoffrey

      Vaz, Keith

      Loyden, Eddie

      Wall, Pat

      MacAllion, John

      Wallace, James

      MacAvoy, Tom

      Walley, Ms Joan

      MacCartney, Ian

      Wardell, Gareth (Gower)

      MacCusker, Harold

      Wareing, Robert N.

      Macdonald, Calum

      Welsh, Michael (Doncaster N)

      MacFall, John

      Wigley, Dafydd

      MacGrady, E. K.

      Williams, Rt Hon A. J.

      MacKelvey, William

      Williams, Alan W. (Carm'then)

      MacLeish, Henry

      Wilson, Brian

      McNamara, Kevin

      Winnick, David

      McTaggart, Bob

      Wise, Mrs Audrey

      243

      Worthington, Anthony

      Tellers for the Ayes:

      Wray, James

      Mr. Frank Cook and

      Young, David (Bolton SE)

      Mr. Allen McKay.

      NOES

      Adley, Robert

      Dicks, Terry

      Alexander, Richard

      Dorrell, Stephen

      Alison, Rt Hon Michael

      Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

      Amess, David

      Dover, Den

      Amos, Alan

      Dunn, Bob

      Arbuthnot, James

      Durant, Tony

      Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

      Dykes, Hugh

      Arnold, Tom (Hazel Grove)

      Eggar, Tim

      Ashby, David

      Evans, David (Welwyn Hatf'd)

      Atkinson, David

      Evennett, David

      Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Valley)

      Fallon, Michael

      Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)

      Favell, Tony

      Baldry, Tony

      Fenner, Dame Peggy

      Banks, Robert (Harrogate)

      Field, Barry (Isle ol Wight)

      Batiste, Spencer

      Fookes, Miss Janet

      Beaumont-Dark, Anthony

      Forman, Nigel

      Bellingham, Henry

      Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

      Bendall, Vivian

      Forth, Eric

      Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)

      Fowler, Rt Hon Norman

      Bevan, David Gilroy

      Franks, Cecil

      Biffen, Rt Hon John

      Freeman, Roger

      Blackburn, Dr John G.

      French, Douglas

      Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter

      Fry, Peter

      Body, Sir Richard

      Gale, Roger

      Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

      Gardiner, George

      Boswell, Tim

      Gill, Christopher

      Bottomley, Peter

      Gilmour, Rt Hon Sir Ian

      Bottomley, Mrs Virginia

      Glyn, Dr Alan

      Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)

      Goodhart, Sir Philip

      Bowis, John

      Goodlad, Alastair

      Boyson, Rt Hon Dr Sir Rhodes

      Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

      Braine, Rt Hon Sir Bernard

      Gorman, Mrs Teresa

      Brandon-Bravo, Martin

      Gow, Ian

      Brazier, Julian

      Gower, Sir Raymond

      Brittan, Rt Hon Leon

      Grant, Sir Anthony (CambsSW)

      Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

      Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

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

      Greenway, John (Rydale)

      Browne, John (Winchester)

      Gregory, Conal

      Bruce, Ian (Dorset South)

      Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)

      Buchanan-Smith, Rt Hon Alick

      Grist, Ian

      Buck, Sir Antony

      Ground, Patrick

      Budgen, Nicholas

      Grylls, Michael

      Burns, Simon

      Hamilton, Hon A. (Epsom)

      Burt, Alistair

      Hampson, Dr Keith

      Butler, Chris

      Hanley, Jeremy

      Butterfill, John

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

      Carlisle, John, (Luton N)

      Hargreaves. Ken (Hyndburn)

      Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

      Harris, David

      Carrington, Matthew

      Hawkins, Christopher

      Carttiss, Michael

      Hayes, Jerry

      Cash, William

      Hayhoe, Rt Hon Sir Barney

      Chalker, Rt Hon Mrs Lynda

      Heathcoat-Amory, David

      Channon, Rt Hon Paul

      Heddle, John

      Chapman, Sydney

      Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael

      Chope, Christopher

      Hicks, Mrs Maureen (Wolv' NE)

      Churchill, Mr

      Hicks, Robert (Cornwall SE)

      Clark, Hon Alan (Plym'th S'n)

      Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.

      Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)

      Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)

      Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)

      Holt, Richard

      Conway, Derek

      Hordern, Sir Peter

      Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)

      Howard, Michael

      Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

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

      Cope, John

      Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)

      Cormack, Patrick

      Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)

      Couchman, James

      Hunt, David (Wirral W)

      Cran, James

      Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)

      Critchley, Julian

      Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas

      Currie, Mrs Edwina

      Irvine, Michael

      Curry, David

      Irving, Charles

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

      Jack, Michael

      Davis, David (Boothferry)

      Jackson, Robert

      Day, Stephen

      Janman, Timothy

      Devlin, Tim

      Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

      Dickens, Geoffrey

      Jones, Robert B (Herts W)

      244

      Kellett-Bowman, Mrs Elaine

      Raison, Rt Hon Timothy

      Key, Robert

      Redwood, John

      King, Roger (B'ham N'thtield)

      Renton, Tim

      Kirkhope, Timothy

      Rhodes James, Robert

      Knapman, Roger

      Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon

      Knight, Greg (Derby North)

      Riddick, Graham

      Knowles, Michael

      Ridley, Rt Hon Nicholas

      Knox, David

      Rifkind, Rt Hon Malcolm

      Lamont, Rt Hon Norman

      Roberts, Wyn (Conwy)

      Lang, Ian

      Roe, Mrs Marion

      Latham, Michael

      Rost, Peter

      Lawrence, Ivan

      Rowe, Andrew

      Lawson, Rt Hon Nigel

      Rumbold, Mrs Angela

      Lee, John (Pendle)

      Ryder, Richard

      Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)

      Sackville, Hon Tom

      Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark

      Sainsbury, Hon Tim

      Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)

      Sayeed, Jonathan

      Lightbown, David

      Scott, Nicholas

      Lilley, Peter

      Shaw, David (Dover)

      Lloyd, Sir Ian (Havant)

      Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')

      Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)

      Shelton, William (Streatham)

      Lord, Michael

      Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

      Luce, Rt Hon Richard

      Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)

      McCrindle, Robert

      Sims, Roger

      Macfarlane, Sir Neil

      Skeet, Sir Trevor

      MacKay, Andrew (E Berkshire)

      Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

      Maclean, David

      Soames, Hon Nicholas

      McLoughlin, Patrick

      Speller, Tony

      McNair-Wilson, M. (Newbury)

      Spicer, Sir Jim (Dorset W)

      McNair-Wilson, P. (New Forest)

      Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

      Madel, David

      Squire, Robin

      Major, Rt Hon John

      Stanbrook, Ivor

      Malins, Humfrey

      Steen, Anthony

      Maples, John

      Stern, Michael

      Marland, Paul

      Stevens, Lewis

      Marlow, Tony

      Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)

      Marshall, John (Hendon S)

      Stewart, Andrew (Sherwood,1

      Marshall, Michael (Arundel)

      Sumberg, David

      Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

      Summerson, Hugo

      Mates, Michael

      Tapsell, Sir Peter

      Maude, Hon Francis

      Taylor, Ian (Esher)

      Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin

      Taylor, John M (Solihull)

      Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick

      Taylor, Teddy (Send E)

      Mellor, David

      Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman

      Meyer, Sir Anthony

      Thatcher, Rt Hon Margaret

      Miller, Hal

      Thompson, D. (Calder Valley)

      Mills, lain

      Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

      Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

      Thorne, Neil

      Mitchell, David (Hants NW)

      Thornton, Malcolm

      Moate, Roger

      Thurnham, Peter

      Monro, Sir Hector

      Townsend, Cyril D. (B'heath)

      Montgomery, Sir Fergus

      Tracey, Richard

      Moore, Rt Hon John

      Tredinnick, David

      Morrison, Sir Charles (Devizes)

      Trippier, David

      Morrison, Hon P (Chester)

      Trotter, Neville

      Moss, Malcolm

      Twinn, Dr Ian

      Moynihan, Hon C.

      Vaughan, Sir Gerard

      Mudd, David

      Waddington, Rt Hon David

      Neale, Gerrard

      Wakeham, Rt Hon John

      Nelson, Anthony

      Waldegrave, Hon William

      Neubert, Michael

      Walker, Bill (T'side North)

      Newton, Rt Hon Tony

      Waller, Gary

      Nicholls, Patrick

      Walters, Dennis

      Nicholson, David (Taunton)

      Ward, John

      Nicholson, Miss E. (Devon W)

      Wardle, C. (Bexhill)

      Onslow, Rt Hon Cranley

      Warren, Kenneth

      Oppenheim, Phillip

      Watts, John

      Page, Richard

      Wells, Bowen

      Paice, James

      Wheeler, John

      Parkinson, Rt Hon Cecil

      Whitney, Ray

      Patnick, Irvine

      Widdecombe, Miss Ann

      Patten, Chris (Bath)

      Wiggin, Jerry

      Patten, John (Oxford W)

      Wilkinson, John

      Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

      Wilshire, David

      Pawsey, James

      Winterton, Mrs Ann

      Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

      Winterton, Nicholas

      Porter, David (Waveney)

      Wolfson, Mark

      Portillo, Michael

      Wood, Timothy

      Powell, William (Corby)

      Woodcock, Mike

      Raffan, Keith

      Yeo, Tim

      245

      young, Sir George (Acton)

      Mr. Robert Boscawen and Mr. Tristan Garel-Jones.

      Tellers for the Noes:

      Question accordingly negatived
      It being after Ten o'clock, further consideration of the Bill stood adjourned.

    BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
    Ordered,
    That at this day's sitting the Social Security Bill may be proceeded with, though opposed, unit any hour.—[Mr. Maclean.]
    Bill, as amended, again considered.

    BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
      New Clause 4

        UPRATING OF CHILD BENEFIT
        'In paragraph (b) of subsection (3) of Section 63 of the Social Security Act 1986 leave out:—
        "(c) or (d) above" and insert:—
        "(c),(d) or, in any Order having effect on or after 10th April 1989, (f), (child benefit), abouve.".'—[Sir Brandon Rhys Williams.]
        Brought up, and read the First time.
        Question put, That the clause be read a Second time:—
        The House divided: Ayes 241, Noes 288.

        Division No. 130]

        [10.10 pn

        AYES

        Adams, Allen (Paisley N)

        Corbyn, Jeremy

        Allen, Graham

        Cousins, Jim

        Alton, David

        Cox, Tom

        Anderson, Donald

        Critchley, Julian

        Archer, Rt Hon Peter

        Crowther, Stan

        Armstrong, Ms Hilary

        Cryer, Bob

        Ashdown, Paddy

        Cummings, J.

        Ashley, Rt Hon Jack

        Cunliffe, Lawrence

        Ashton, Joe

        Cunningham, Dr John

        Banks, Tony (Newham NW)

        Dalyell, Tarn

        Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)

        Darling, Alastair

        Barron, Kevin

        Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

        Battle, John

        Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)

        Beckett, Margaret

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

        Beggs, Roy

        Dewar, Donald

        Bell, Stuart

        Dixon, Don

        Benn, Rt Hon Tony

        Dobson, Frank

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

        Doran, Frank

        Bermingham, Gerald

        Douglas, Dick

        Bidwell, Sydney

        Dunnachie, James

        Blair, Tony

        Dunwoody, Hon Mrs Gwyneth

        Blunkett, David

        Dykes, Hugh

        Boateng, Paul

        Eadie, Alexander

        Bowis, John

        Eastham, Ken

        Boyes, Roland

        Evans, John (St Helens N)

        Bradley, Keith

        Ewing, Harry (Falkirk E)

        Bray, Dr Jeremy

        Ewing, Mrs Margaret (Moray)

        Brown, Gordon (D'mline E)

        Fatchett, Derek

        Brown, Nicholas (Newcastle E)

        Faulds, Andrew

        Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)

        Fearn, Ronald

        Buchan, Norman

        Field, Frank (Birkenhead)

        Buckley, George

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

        Caborn, Richard

        Fisher, Mark

        Callaghan, Jim

        Flannery, Martin

        Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

        Flynn, Paul

        Campbell-Savours, D. N.

        Forsythe, Clifford (Antrim S)

        Canavan, Dennis

        Foster, Derek

        Carlile, Alex (Mont'g)

        Fraser, John

        Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)

        Fyfe, Mrs Maria

        Clay, Bob

        Galbraith, Samuel

        Clelland, David

        Galloway, George

        Clwyd, Mrs Ann

        Garrett, John (Norwich South)

        Cohen, Harry

        Garrett, Ted (Wallsend)

        Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

        Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John

        Cook, Robin (Livingston)

        Gilmour, Rt Hon Sir Ian

        Corbett, Robin

        Godman, Dr Norman A.

        246

        Golding, Mrs Llin

        Moonie, Dr Lewis

        Gordon, Ms Mildred

        Morgan, Rhodri

        Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)

        Morley, Elliott

        Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

        Morris, Rt Hon J (Aberavon)

        Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

        Mowlam, Marjorie

        Grocott, Bruce

        Mullin, Chris

        Harman, Ms Harriet

        Murphy, Paul

        Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy

        Nellist, Dave

        Haynes, Frank

        Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon

        Healey, Rt Hon Denis

        O'Brien, William

        Heffer, Eric S

        O'Neill, Martin

        Hicks, Robert (Cornwall SE)

        Patchert, Terry

        Hinchhffe, David

        Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

        Hogg, N (C'nauld & Kilsyth)

        Pendry, Tom

        Holland, Stuart

        Pike, Peter

        Home Robertson, John

        Powell, Ray (Ogmore)

        Hood, James

        Prescott, John

        Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

        Primarolo, Ms Dawn

        Howell, Rt Hon D (S'heath)

        Quin, Ms Joyce

        Hoyle, Doug

        Radice, Giles

        Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

        Raison, Rt Hon Timothy

        Hughes, Roy (Newport E)

        Randall, Stuart

        Hughes, Sean (Knowsley S)

        Redmond, Martin

        Hughes, Simon (Southwark)

        Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn

        Hume, John

        Reid, John

        Illsley, Eric

        Richardson, Ms Jo

        Ingram, Adam

        Robertson, George

        Janner, Greville

        Robinson, Geoffrey

        John, Brynmor

        Rogers, Allan

        Jones, Barry (Alyn & Deeside)

        Rooker, Jeff

        Jones, leuan (Ynys Môn)

        Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

        Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S W)

        Rowe, Andrew

        Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

        Rowlands, Ted

        Kellett-Bowman, Mrs Elaine

        Salmond, Alex

        Kinnock, Rt Hon Neil

        Sedgemore, Brian

        Kirkwood, Archy

        Sheerman, Barry

        Lambie, David

        Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

        Lamond, James

        Shore, Rt Hon Peter

        Leadbitter, Ted

        Skinner, Dennis

        Leighton, Ron

        Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)

        Lestor, Miss Joan (Eccles)

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

        Lewis, Terry

        Smith, Rt Hon J (Monk'ds E)

        Litherland, Robert

        Snape, Peter

        Livingstone, Ken

        Soley, Clive

        Lofthouse, Geoffrey

        Spearing, Nigel

        Loyden, Eddie

        Squire, Robin

        McAlhon, John

        Steinberg, Gerald

        McAvoy, Tom

        Stott, Roger

        McCartney, Ian

        Strang, Gavin

        McCrindle, Robert

        Straw, Jack

        McCusker, Harold

        Taylor Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

        Macdonald, Calum

        Taylor, Rt Hon J D (S'ford)

        McFall, John

        Thomas, Dafydd Elis

        McGrady, E K

        Thompson, Jack (Wansbeck)

        McKay, Allen (Penistone)

        Townsend, Cyril D (B'heath)

        McKelvey, William

        Turner Dennis

        McLeish, Henry

        Vaz, Keith

        McNamara, Kevin

        Wall, Pat

        McTaggart Bob

        Wallace, James

        McWilham, John

        Walley, Ms Joan

        Madden, Max

        Warden, Gareth (Gower)

        Mahon, Mrs Alice

        Wareing, Robert N

        Marek, Dr John

        Welsh, Michael (Doncaster N)

        Marlow, Tony

        Wigley, Dafydd

        Marshall, David (Shettleston)

        Williams, Rt Hon A J

        Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

        Williams, Alan W (Carm'then)

        Martin Michael (Springburn)

        Wilson, Brian

        Martlew, Eric

        Winnick, David

        Maxton, John

        Wise, Mrs Audrey

        Meacher, Michael

        Worthington, Anthony

        Meale, Alan

        Wray, James

        Meyer, Sir Anthony

        Young, David (Bolton SE)

        Michael, Alun

        Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)

        Tellers for the Ayes

        Michie, Mrs Ray (Arg'l & Bute)

        Sir Brandon Rhys Williams

        Millan, Rt Hon Bruce

        and Mr Jim Lester

        Mitchell, Austin (G't Grimsby)

        247

        NOES

        Adley, Robert

        Evans, David (Welwyn Hatf'd)

        Alexander, Richard

        Evennett, David

        Alison, Rt Hon Michael

        Fallon, Michael

        Amess, David

        Favell, Tony

        Amos, Alan

        Fenner, Dame Peggy

        Arbuthnot, James

        Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)

        Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

        Fookes, Miss Janet

        Arnold, Tom (Hazel Grove)

        Forman, Nigel

        Ashby, David

        Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

        Atkinson, David

        Forth, Eric

        Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Valley)

        Fowler, Rt Hon Norman

        Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)

        Franks, Cecil

        Baldry, Tony

        Freeman, Roger

        Banks, Robert (Harrogate)

        French, Douglas

        Batiste, Spencer

        Fry, Peter

        Beaumont-Dark, Anthony

        Gale, Roger

        Bellingham, Henry

        Gardiner, George

        Bendall, Vivian

        Gill, Christopher

        Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)

        Glyn, Dr Alan

        Bevan, David Gilroy

        Goodhart, Sir Philip

        Bitten, Rt Hon John

        Goodlad, Alastair

        Blackburn, Dr John G.

        Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

        Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter

        Gorman, Mrs Teresa

        Body, Sir Richard

        Gow, Ian

        Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

        Gower, Sir Raymond

        Boswell, Tim

        Grant, Sir Anthony (CambsSW)

        Bottomley, Peter

        Greenway, Harry (Baling N)

        Bottomley, Mrs Virginia

        Greenway, John (Rydale)

        Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)

        Gregory, Conal

        Boyson, Rt Hon Dr Sir Rhodes

        Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)

        Braine, Rt Hon Sir Bernard

        Grist, Ian

        Brandon-Bravo, Martin

        Ground, Patrick

        Brazier, Julian

        Grylls, Michael

        Brittan, Rt Hon Leon

        Hamilton, Hon A. (Epsom)

        Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

        Hampson, Dr Keith

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

        Hanley, Jeremy

        Browne, John (Winchester)

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

        Bruce, Ian (Dorset South)

        Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn)

        Buchanan-Smith, Rt Hon Alick

        Harris, David

        Buck, Sir Antony

        Hawkins, Christopher

        Budgen, Nicholas

        Hayes, Jerry

        Burns, Simon

        Heathcoat-Amory, David

        Burt, Alistair

        Heddle, John

        Butcher, John

        Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael

        Butler, Chris

        Hicks, Mrs Maureen (Wolv' NE)

        Butterfill, John

        Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.

        Carlisle, John, (Luton N)

        Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)

        Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

        Holt, Richard

        Carrington, Matthew

        Hordern, Sir Peter

        Carttiss, Michael

        Howard, Michael

        Cash, William

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

        Chalker, Rt Hon Mrs Lynda

        Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)

        Channon, Rt Hon Paul

        Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)

        Chapman, Sydney

        Hunt, David (Wirral W)

        Chope, Christopher

        Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas

        Churchill, Mr

        Irvine, Michael

        Clark, Hon Alan (Plym'th S'n)

        Irving, Charles

        Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)

        Jack, Michael

        Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)

        Jackson, Robert

        Conway, Derek

        Janman, Timothy

        Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)

        Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

        Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

        Jones, Robert B (Herts W)

        Cope, John

        Key, Robert

        Couchman, James

        King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)

        Cran, James

        Kirkhope, Timothy

        Currie, Mrs Edwina

        Knapman, Roger

        Curry David

        Knight, Greg (Derby North)

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

        Knowles, Michael

        Davis David (Boothferry)

        Knox, David

        Day, Stephen

        Lamont, Rt Hon Norman

        Devlin, Tim

        Lang, Ian

        Dickens, Geoffrey

        Latham, Michael

        Dicks, Terry

        Lawrence, Ivan

        Dorrell, Stephen

        Lawson, Rt Hon Nigel

        Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

        Lee, John (Pendle)

        Dover, Den

        Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)

        Dunn, Bob

        Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark

        Durart, Tony

        Lightbown, David

        Eggar, Tim

        Lilley, Peter

        248

        Lloyd, Sir Ian (Havant)

        Sackville, Hon Tom

        Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)

        Sainsbury, Hon Tim

        Lord, Michael

        Sayeed, Jonathan

        Luce, Rt Hon Richard

        Scott, Nicholas

        Macfarlane, Sir Neil

        Shaw, David (Dover)

        MacKay, Andrew (E Berkshire)

        Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')

        Maclean, David

        Shelton, William (Streatham)

        McLoughlin, Patrick

        Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

        McNair-Wilson, M. (Newbury)

        Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)

        McNair-Wilson, P. (New Forest)

        Sims, Roger

        Major, Rt Hon John

        Skeet, Sir Trevor

        Malins, Humfrey

        Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

        Maples, John

        Soames, Hon Nicholas

        Marland, Paul

        Speller, Tony

        Marshall, John (Hendon S)

        Spicer, Sir Jim (Dorset W)

        Marshall, Michael (Arundel)

        Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

        Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

        Stanbrook, Ivor

        Mates, Michael

        Steen, Anthony

        Maude, Hon Francis

        Stern, Michael

        Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin

        Stevens, Lewis

        Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick

        Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)

        Mellor, David

        Stewart, Andrew (Sherwood)

        Miller, Hal

        Sumberg, David

        Mills, lain

        Summerson, Hugo

        Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

        Tapsell, Sir Peter

        Mitchell, David (Hants NW)

        Taylor, Ian (Esher)

        Moate, Roger

        Taylor, John M (Solihull)

        Monro, Sir Hector

        Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)

        Montgomery, Sir Fergus

        Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman

        Moore, Rt Hon John

        Thatcher, Rt Hon Margaret

        Morrison, Sir Charles (Devizes)

        Thompson, D. (Calder Valley)

        Morrison, Hon P (Chester)

        Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

        Moss, Malcolm

        Thorne, Neil

        Moynihan, Hon C.

        Thornton, Malcolm

        Mudd, David

        Thurnham, Peter

        Neale, Gerrard

        Tracey, Richard

        Nelson, Anthony

        Tredinnick, David

        Neubert, Michael

        Trippier, David

        Newton, Rt Hon Tony

        Trotter, Neville

        Nicholls, Patrick

        Twinn, Dr Ian

        Nicholson, David (Taunton)

        Vaughan, Sir Gerard

        Nicholson, Miss E. (Devon W)

        Waddington, Rt Hon David

        Onslow, Rt Hon Cranley

        Wakeham, Rt Hon John

        Oppenheim, Phillip

        Waldegrave, Hon William

        Page, Richard

        Walker, Bill (T'side North)

        Paice, James

        Waller, Gary

        Parkinson, Rt Hon Cecil

        Ward, John

        Patnick, Irvine

        Wardle, C. (Bexhill)

        Patten, Chris (Bath)

        Warren, Kenneth

        Patten, John (Oxford W)

        Watts, John

        Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

        Wells, Bowen

        Pawsey, James

        Wheeler, John

        Porter, David (Waveney)

        Whitney, Ray

        Portillo, Michael

        Widdecombe, Miss Ann

        Powell, William (Corby)

        Wiggin, Jerry

        Raffan, Keith

        Wilkinson, John

        Redwood, John

        Wilshire, David

        Renton, Tim

        Winterton, Mrs Ann

        Rhodes James, Robert

        Winterton, Nicholas

        Riddick, Graham

        Wolfson, Mark

        Ridley, Rt Hon Nicholas

        Wood, Timothy

        Rifkind, Rt Hon Malcolm

        Woodcock, Mike

        Roberts, Wyn (Conwy)

        Yeo, Tim

        Roe, Mrs Marion

        Rost, Peter

        Tellers for the Noes:

        Rumbold, Mrs Angela

        Mr. Robert Boscawen and

        Ryder, Richard

        Mr. Tristan Garel-Jones.

        Question accordingly negatived.

    New Clause 6

      INCOME SUPPORT FOR YOUNG PEOPLE
      `At end of Section 21 (1) ( b ) of the Social Security Act 1986 there shall be inserted the words "and ( c ) if he is over the age of 18 and below pensionable age he shall not be paid a lower rate of benefit due to his age.".'.—[Mr. Fearn.]
      Brought up, and read the First time.
      Mr. Fearn: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
      The new clause deals with income support for young people. The intention is to remove the distinction between claimants for income support who are over and under the age of 25. From April 1988, single childless people between the ages of 18 and 24 who are entitled to claim for income support will receive £2605, while those aged 25 and over will receive £6 more. We are completely opposed to this distinction, as it is completely arbitrary. Why, for example, should a person aged 241 have fewer expenses and financial needs than someone six months older?
      The Government perhaps believe that a person aged under rather than over 25 may be able to depend on parents. Forcing young people to depend on their parents is a recent trend in legislation and is a feature of clause 4 of the Social Security Bill. We should be encouraging young people to take full responsibility for their own lives.
      The Liberal party is running an excellent campaign called "Youth Chance" which is designed to help young people take full advantage of their rights so that they can be more independent. In my constituency of Southport, young people certainly fight for their rights themselves, and I hope that they will continue to do so. The Government, by contrast, are helping to create an atmosphere of dependence around young people from which they will find it difficult to escape. That is totally against the Government's avowed aim to encourage independence among all people, and I am perplexed by this contradiction between the Government's aims and their actions.
      The age limit of 25 used for income support is not a widely recognised age limit in the sense that 16, 18 and 21 years are commonly recognised ages that mark changes in a person's status. We now assume that once young people reach the age of 18 they are responsible adults and are expected to behave as such. This new age limit attacks that principle.
      Similarly, the age limit of 25 years is not widely employed elsewhere in British legislation, so it is difficult to understand why it has been introduced for income support; unless, of course, it is merely a means by which the Government can save themselves a small amount of money. The amounts that will be saved are not great and the hardship and bitterness that this arbitrary age limit will cause cannot justify such a saving. I urge the Government to reflect on this very unfair distinction and to accept my amendment, which will prevent this injustice. I intend to take the matter to a Division.
      Mr. Robin Cook: I remind the House that on many previous occasions the official Opposition have supported the principle advanced on this occasion by the hon. Member for Southport (Mr. Fearn). If he divides the House we shall be happy to divide with him. I do not think that at this late hour there is an argument of sufficient originality and novelty for the principle, which I could advance to the House, to change the minds of those who have already made up their minds. But I believe that the Government, in creating a quite new distinction between a full adult rate and a less than adult rate for those younger than 25, have introduced a new distinction into our social security system that is insupportable and cannot survive indefinitely.
      10.30 pm
      The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Security (Mr. Michael Portillo): There are three things that we are not discussing tonight. One is the position of 16 and 17-year-olds. There has always been a lower rate of benefit for them under supplementary benefit, and the lower rate continues under income support. I do not think that is in dispute between us.
      The second thing that we are not discussing is the position of couples because there will be no distinction in income support between what couples receive, whether above or below the age of 25. The third thing that we are not discussing is the position of parents because single parents will be paid the lone parent rate of income support, which is £33.40. On top of that they will receive the family premium, plus the single parent premium, plus the addition for the child.
      The point that is at issue between us is the position of the single unemployed under the age of 25. Our movement away from the distinction of householder to a distinction on age grounds is dictated because we think this is a welcome simplification. All that is needed now to establish the entitlement of a claimant is one piece of information, the date of birth of the claimant. It avoids all the difficult points of definition that arise on householders and non-householders, let alone all the difficulties that arise if we try to divide benefits between people who are living together, sharing a house or a flat. As I have mentioned, there is a precedent for a division on age grounds in supplementary benefit, although I agree with the hon. Member for Southport (Mr. Fearn) that that division was not at age 25. There may not be a precedent for that age, but I will tell him in a moment why we think 25 is the right age for the division.
      Most young people expect to receive less when they are young than do others who are longer in the tooth, or than they themselves will receive later in life. That would be their general position if they were in work. I do not think it is such a far-reaching idea that people who are young should be expected to live off a lesser amount of money than people who are a little older. We have not taken that principle to its logical conclusion because we are protecting families of whatever age by treating couples, whether below or above the age of 18, equally by giving the special rate to single parents.
      We chose the age of 25 because there is fairly good evidence for that being an important age in the life style of young people. In fact, 90 per cent. of claimants over the age of 25 are householders. On the other hand, only one in five single claimants under the age of 25 is a householder. As a result of the reforms, given those figures, of the 810,000 single claimants between the ages of 16 and 24, 450,000 will gain and 200,000 will experience no change.
      Young single claimants will receive rates compensation of £1 in income support even though, as will be clear to the House, the majority of them will not be liable to pay rates. The amount that we will pay in income support of £26·05 compares with the non-householder rate of supplementary benefit of £24·35.
      The most important extra cost that a person might face if he was a householder is the housing cost. That is met by a different benefit, housing benefit. Under the reformed system, the starting point for the payment of rent under the income support scheme is 100 per cent. of that rent

      251
      payment. We believe strongly that housing benefit is the correct way to address the extra housing cost that a householder might have to face.
      I think this is a welcome simplification. It represents a considerable improvement in the system. I believe, despite what the hon. Gentleman has said, that there is every logic to support the age of 25. I commend that approach to the House. I have to advise the House to reject the new clause.
      Question put, That the clause be read a Second time:
      The House divided: Ayes 176, Noes 297.

      Division No. 131]

      [10.34 pm

      AYES

      Adams, Allen (Paisley N)

      Flynn, Paul

      Allen, Graham

      Forsythe, Clifford (Antrim S)

      Alton, David

      Foster, Derek

      Anderson, Donald

      Fraser, John

      Armstrong, Ms Hilary

      Fyfe, Mrs Maria

      Ashdown, Paddy

      Galbraith, Samuel

      Ashley, Rt Hon Jack

      Garrett, John (Norwich South)

      Banks, Tony (Newham NW)

      Godman, Dr Norman A.

      Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)

      Golding, Mrs Llin

      Barron, Kevin

      Gordon, Ms Mildred

      Battle, John

      Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)

      Beckett, Margaret

      Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

      Beggs, Roy

      Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

      Bell, Stuart

      Grocott, Bruce

      Benn, Rt Hon Tony

      Harman, Ms Harriet

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

      Haynes, Frank

      Bermingham, Gerald

      Healey, Rt Hon Denis

      Blair, Tony

      Hinchliffe, David

      Blunkett, David

      Hogg, N. (C'nauld & Kilsyth)

      Boateng, Paul

      Home Robertson, John

      Boyes, Roland

      Hood, James

      Bradley, Keith

      Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

      Bray, Dr Jeremy

      Hoyle, Doug

      Brown, Gordon (D'mline E)

      Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

      Brown, Nicholas (Newcastle E)

      Hughes, Sean (Knowsley S)

      Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)

      Hughes, Simon (Southwark)

      Buchan, Norman

      Illsley, Eric

      Buckley, George

      Ingram, Adam

      Caborn, Richard

      Janner, Greville

      Callaghan, Jim

      Jones, leuan (Ynys Môn)

      Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

      Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S W)

      Campbell-Savours, D. N.

      Kirkwood, Archy

      Canavan, Dennis

      Lamond, James

      Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)

      Leadbitter, Ted

      Clay, Bob

      Leighton, Ron

      Clelland, David

      Lestor, Miss Joan (Eccles)

      Clwyd, Mrs Ann

      Lewis, Terry

      Cohen, Harry

      Livingstone, Ken

      Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

      Lofthouse, Geoffrey

      Cook, Robin (Livingston)

      McAllion, John

      Corbyn, Jeremy

      McAvoy, Tom

      Cousins, Jim

      McCartney, Ian

      Cox, Tom

      Macdonald, Calum

      Crowther, Stan

      McKay, Allen (Penistone)

      Cryer, Bob

      McLeish, Henry

      Cunliffe, Lawrence

      McNamara, Kevin

      Cunningham, Dr John

      McWilliam, John

      Dalyell, Tarn

      Madden, Max

      Darling, Alastair

      Marek, Dr John

      Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)

      Marshall, David (Shettleston)

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

      Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

      Dewar, Donald

      Martin, Michael (Springburn)

      Dixon, Don

      Martlew, Eric

      Doran, Frank

      Maxton, John

      Douglas, Dick

      Meacher, Michael

      Dunwoody, Hon Mrs Gwyneth

      Meale, Alan

      Eadie, Alexander

      Michael, Alun

      Eastham, Ken

      Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)

      Evans, John (St Helens N)

      Michie, Mrs Ray (Arg'l & Bute)

      Ewing, Harry (Falkirk E)

      Mitchell, Austin (G't Grimsby)

      Ewing, Mrs Margaret (Moray)

      Moonie, Dr Lewis

      Fatchett, Derek

      Morgan, Rhodri

      Faulds, Andrew

      Morley, Elliott

      Field, Frank (Birkenhead)

      Mowlam Marjorie

      Fisher, Mark

      Mullin, Chris

      252

      Murphy, Paul

      Spearing, Nigel

      Nellist, Dave

      Steinberg, Gerald

      Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon

      Strang, Gavin

      O'Brien, William

      Straw, Jack

      O'Neill, Martin

      Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

      Patchett, Terry

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

      Pendry, Tom

      Thomas, Dafydd Elis

      Pike, Peter

      Turner, Dennis

      Powell, Ray (Ogmore)

      Vaz, Keith

      Prescott, John

      Wallace, James

      Primarolo, Ms Dawn

      Walley, Ms Joan

      Quin, Ms Joyce

      Wardell, Gareth (Gower)

      Robertson, George

      Wareing, Robert N.

      Robinson, Geoffrey

      Williams, Rt Hon A. J.

      Rogers, Allan

      Williams, Alan W. (Carm'then)

      Rowlands, Ted

      Wilson, Brian

      Salmond, Alex

      Winnick, David

      Sedgemore, Brian

      Wise, Mrs Audrey

      Sheerman, Barry

      Worthington, Anthony

      Shore, Rt Hon Peter

      Wray, James

      Skinner, Dennis

      Young, David (Bolton SE)

      Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)

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

      Tellers for the Ayes:

      Snape, Peter

      Mr. Dafydd Wigley and

      Soley, Clive

      and Mr. Ronnie Fearn.

      NOES

      Alexander, Richard

      Chope, Christopher

      Alison, Rt Hon Michael

      Churchill, Mr

      Amess, David

      Clark, Hon Alan (Plym'th S'n)

      Amos, Alan

      Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)

      Arbuthnot, James

      Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)

      Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

      Conway, Derek

      Arnold, Tom (Hazel Grove)

      Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)

      Ashby, David

      Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

      Atkinson, David

      Cope, John

      Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Valley)

      Couchman, James

      Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)

      Cran, James

      Baldry, Tony

      Currie, Mrs Edwina

      Banks, Robert (Harrogate)

      Curry, David

      Batiste, Spencer

      Davies, Q. (Stamfd & Spald'g)

      Beaumont-Dark, Anthony

      Davis, David (Boothferry)

      Bellingham, Henry

      Day, Stephen

      Bendall, Vivian

      Dickens, Geoffrey

      Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)

      Dicks, Terry

      Bevan, David Gilroy

      Dorrell, Stephen

      Biffen, Rt Hon John

      Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

      Blackburn, Dr John G.

      Dover, Den

      Body, Sir Richard

      Dunn, Bob

      Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

      Durant, Tony

      Boswell, Tim

      Dykes, Hugh

      Bottom ley, Peter

      Eggar, Tim

      Bottomley, Mrs Virginia

      Evans, David (Welwyn Hatf'd)

      Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)

      Evennett, David

      Bowis, John

      Fallon, Michael

      Boyson, Rt Hon Dr Sir Rhodes

      Fenner, Dame Peggy

      Braine, Rt Hon Sir Bernard

      Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)

      Brandon-Bravo, Martin

      Fookes, Miss Janet

      Brazier, Julian

      Forman, Nigel

      Brittan, Rt Hon Leon

      Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

      Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

      Forth, Eric

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

      Fowler, Rt Hon Norman

      Browne, John (Winchester)

      Franks, Cecil

      Bruce, Ian (Dorset South)

      Freeman, Roger

      Buchanan-Smith, Rt Hon Alick

      French, Douglas

      Buck, Sir Antony

      Gale, Roger

      Budgen, Nicholas

      Gardiner, George

      Burns, Simon

      Gill, Christopher

      Burt, Alistair

      Gilmour, Rt Hon Sir Ian

      Butcher, John

      Glyn, Dr Alan

      Butler, Chris

      Goodhart, Sir Philip

      Butterfill, John

      Goodlad, Alastair

      Carlisle, John, (Luton N)

      Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

      Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

      Gorman, Mrs Teresa

      Carrington, Matthew

      Gow, Ian

      Carttiss, Michael

      Gower, Sir Raymond

      Cash, William

      Grant, Sir Anthony (CambsSW)

      Chalker, Rt Hon Mrs Lynda

      Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

      Channon, Rt Hon Paul

      Greenway, John (Rydale)

      Chapman, Sydney

      Gregory, Conal

      253

      Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)

      Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)

      Grist, Ian

      Lord, Michael

      Ground, Patrick

      Luce, Rt Hon Richard

      Hamilton, Hon A. (Epsom)

      McCrindle, Robert

      Hampson, Dr Keith

      Macfarlane, Sir Neil

      Hanley, Jeremy

      MacKay, Andrew (E Berkshire)

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

      Maclean, David

      Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn)

      McLoughlin, Patrick

      Harris, David

      McNair-Wilson, M. (Newbury)

      Hawkins, Christopher

      McNair-Wilson, P. (New Forest)

      Hayes, Jerry

      Madel, David

      Hayhoe, Rt Hon Sir Barney

      Major, Rt Hon John

      Heathcoat-Amory, David

      Malins, Humfrey

      Heddle, John

      Maples, John

      Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael

      Marland, Paul

      Hicks, Mrs Maureen (Wolv' NE)

      Marlow, Tony

      Hicks, Robert (Cornwall SE)

      Marshall, John (Hendon S)

      Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.

      Marshall, Michael (Arundel)

      Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)

      Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

      Holt, Richard

      Mates, Michael

      Hordern, Sir Peter

      Maude, Hon Francis

      Howard, Michael

      Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin

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

      Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick

      Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)

      Mellor, David

      Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)

      Meyer, Sir Anthony

      Hunt, David (Wirral W)

      Miller, Hal

      Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)

      Mills, lain

      Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas

      Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

      Irvine, Michael

      Mitchell, David (Hants NW)

      Jack, Michael

      Moate, Roger

      Jackson, Robert

      Monro, Sir Hector

      Janman, Timothy

      Montgomery, Sir Fergus

      Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

      Morrison, Sir Charles (Devizes)

      Jones, Robert B (Herts W)

      Morrison, Hon P (Chester)

      Kellett-Bowman, Mrs Elaine

      Moss, Malcolm

      Key, Robert

      Moynihan, Hon C.

      King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)

      Mudd, David

      Kirkhope, Timothy

      Neale, Gerrard

      Knapman, Roger

      Nelson, Anthony

      Knight, Greg (Derby North)

      Neubert, Michael

      Knowles, Michael

      Newton, Rt Hon Tony

      Knox, David

      Nicholls, Patrick

      Lamont, Rt Hon Norman

      Nicholson, David (Taunton)

      Lang, Ian

      Nicholson, Miss E. (Devon W)

      Latham, Michael

      Onslow, Rt Hon Cranley

      Lawrence, Ivan

      Oppenheim, Phillip

      Lee, John (Pendle)

      Page, Richard

      Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)

      Paice, James

      Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark

      Parkinson, Rt Hon Cecil

      Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)

      Patnick, Irvine

      Lightbown, David

      Patten, Chris (Bath)

      Lilley, Peter

      Patten, John (Oxford W)

      Lloyd, Sir Ian (Havant)

      Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

      254

      Pawsey, James

      Taylor, Ian (Esher)

      Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

      Taylor, John M (Solihull)

      Porter, David (Waveney)

      Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)

      Portillo, Michael

      Thatcher, Rt Hon Margaret

      Powell, William (Corby)

      Thompson, D. (Calder Valley)

      Raffan, Keith

      Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

      Raison, Rt Hon Timothy

      Thorne, Neil

      Redwood, John

      Thornton, Malcolm

      Renton, Tim

      Thurnham, Peter

      Rhodes James, Robert

      Townsend, Cyril D. (B'heath)

      Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon

      Tracey, Richard

      Riddick, Graham

      Tredinnick, David

      Ridley, Rt Hon Nicholas

      Trippier, David

      Rifkind, Rt Hon Malcolm

      Trotter, Neville

      Roberts, Wyn (Conwy)

      Twinn, Dr Ian

      Roe, Mrs Marion

      Vaughan, Sir Gerard

      Rowe, Andrew

      Waddington, Rt Hon David

      Rumbold, Mrs Angela

      Wakeham, Rt Hon John

      Ryder, Richard

      Waldegrave, Hon William

      Sackville, Hon Tom

      Walker, Bill (T'side North)

      Sainsbury, Hon Tim

      Waller, Gary

      Sayeed, Jonathan

      Walters, Dennis

      Scott, Nicholas

      Ward, John

      Shaw, David (Dover)

      Wardle, C. (Bexhill)

      Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')

      Warren, Kenneth

      Shelton, William (Streatham)

      Watts, John

      Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

      Wells, Bowen

      Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)

      Wheeler, John

      Sims, Roger

      Whitney, Ray

      Skeet, Sir Trevor

      Widdecombe, Miss Ann

      Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

      Wiggin, Jerry

      Soames, Hon Nicholas

      Wilkinson, John

      Speller, Tony

      Wilshire, David

      Spicer, Sir Jim (Dorset W)

      Winterton, Mrs Ann

      Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

      Winterton, Nicholas

      Squire, Robin

      Wolfson, Mark

      Stanbrook, Ivor

      Wood, Timothy

      Steen, Anthony

      Woodcock, Mike

      Stern, Michael

      Yeo, Tim

      Stevens, Lewis

      Young, Sir George (Acton)

      Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)

      Stewart, Andrew (Sherwood)

      Tellers for the Noes:

      Sumberg, David

      Mr. Tristan Garel-Jones and

      Summerson, Hugo

      Mr. Robert Boscawen.

      Tapsell, Sir Peter

      Question accordingly negatived.
      Further consideration of the adjourned.—[Mr. Dorrell.]
      Bill, as amended (in the Standing further considered tomorrow.

Industrial Training
10.46 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Employment (Mr. Patrick Nicholls): I beg to move,
That the draft Industrial Training Levy (Construction Board) (No. 2) Order 1987, which was laid before this House on 1st December, be approved.
The order requires parliamentary approval under the provisions of the Industrial Training Act 1982, because one part of it — that covering labour-only subcontractors—involves a levy exceeding 1 per cent. of an employer's payroll. The levy proposals are in the same format as those approved by both Houses in January 1987, and show only one change from those arrangements. The board forecasts that the levy proposals will raise about £48 million.
The levy is made up of three parts. First, there will be an occupational levy on directly employed construction workers in the main industry. A set amount will be raised for each occupation, but that is subject to an overall limit of 1 per cent. of employers' wage bills. The rates vary according to the type of craftsman trained, and reflect the training costs of each craft. It is here that one change has been made from last year's levy proposals. The per capita levy rate for the principal building crafts has been reduced from £75 to £70. This has been made possible by a slightly lower than anticipated take-up of Construction Industry Training Board grants in that sector in the current year. Apart from that reduction, there are no changes in this year's levy proposals.
Secondly, the board proposes to retain the 2 per cent. levy on payments made by firms in the main industry for work done by labour-only sub-contractors. That rate has remained unchanged since 1981, and reflects the board's judgment that labour-only sub-contractors in general undertake too little training, relying instead on obtaining skilled manpower trained by other employers. For the main industry, covered by these two levy rates, companies with payrolls of £15,000 or less will not be required to pay levy. That will exclude from levy about 51 per cent. of all construction firms within the board's scope.
Thirdly, for the smaller brick manufacturing sector, the board proposes a rate of 0.05 per cent. of payroll. Employers with a wage bill of £100,000 a year or less will be excluded from the levy. That, too, is unchanged from last year.
The levy proposals have been approved by the board, and are strongly supported by the employers' organisations in the industry. In fact, as the proposals make no provision for exemption, and as some employers will be paying levy amounting to more than 0.2 per cent. of payroll, the board is required by the Industrial Training Act 1982 to demonstrate a double consensus of support for its proposals — first, among employer organisations representing all firms, large and small, which will pay the levy; and, second, among organisations representing firms that between them will pay more than 50 per cent. of the total levy. The fact that the board's proposals command that level of support, and have done so every year since the need for consensus was introduced in 1973, demonstrates the strong support in the industry for the board's work.
The levy proposals have been agreed by broad consensus among building employers, adopted by the
256
board without opposition and approved by the Manpower Services Commission. They are necessary for the board to continue with its work of developing and improving training arrangements in the construction industry, and I therefore commend the order to the House.
10.50 pm
Mr. Barry Sheerman: While the Opposition support the order and congratulate the CITB on its work and the challenges that it has met over the past years, and, indeed, over the past year, and although the hour is late, I want to take the Minister to task briefly for not acknowledging tonight that there is a real crisis in the construction industry. There is a crisis in training for the construction industry as a whole. While the Minister is right to state that the Construction Industry Training Board conforms to a model that we would have liked to see in far broader terms for most of British industry, we still lament and regret the fact that the Government abolished all but six of the industrial training boards.
This evening I want to draw the attention of the House to the fact that the Construction Industry Training. Board is exactly the system that we admire: it is a statutory board, it has a levy and in many senses it is a very successful industrial training board. It is the model that we would like to see in the rest of British industry. While we admire the CITB and believe that much that it does is of great worth, there is something of a conundrum.
We warned the Government this time last year that there would be a crisis in training for the construction industry. Although there is an industrial training board and a consensus between employers and employees — and we cannot leave out the employees and the very positive approach that the Union of Construction, Allied Trades and Technicians takes on all training matters —there is also tremendous evidence of skill shortages throughout the country, especially in the south-east, south-west and London. Those shortages of trained and skilled people in the construction industry have been caused by the reluctance to train over the past 10 years. While there is a levy and the industrial training board performs some of the job, there are other facets of Government policy that have undermined training in the construction industry, and it is important that I put them before the House briefly this evening.
The crisis facing the construction industry is very grave. It affects all the attempts to build major public and private projects and may endanger some of the projects that the Government hold dear and which they want to see reach fruition over the next two or three years during the Government's lifetime. However, the failure to train adequately in the construction industry will also frustrate any ambition to build publicly or privately provided homes for the homeless or to renovate and repair much of Britain's crumbling housing stock.
I hope that the House will indulge me when I ask, what are the reasons for the crisis and what can the CITB and the levy do about it? The present situation is largely of the Government's making. The crisis has been a long time coming. The Opposition warned the Government last year that there was a crisis and we warned them in the years before that. We told the Government that, if they did not take training seriously, particularly in crucial industries such as the construction industry which must lead in any

257
economic regeneration, when any growth came it would be short indeed because it would run up against a shortage of skilled workers.
Half the problem is the construction industry's inability to reproduce the skills available to the industry. The CITB sometimes puts out figures that show a rough balance between the number of workers coming into the industry and the construction work going on, but if one looks beyond the statistics, one sees a disturbing picture. There are half the number of apprentices in training—half the number of skilled men and women coming into the industry—that there were 10 years ago.
There has been a dramatic decline in the industry's activity over that period, which coincides with the election of the Conservative Government in 1979. Now, the rate of building is back up to what it was in the mid and late 1970s, yet there is a great decrease in the amount of training. The reason for that is a serious question, which was partly answered in the Minister's brief introduction to the order this evening. It is due to the high level of exemption in the industry.
Let me give some evidence. An increasing portion of the industry is out of scope, due to the exemptions of small employers who make up an increasing share of the industry and due to the growth of labour-only subcontractors being granted what are called 714 certificates. Despite the increasing activity of the CITB, that greater level of exemption means that less training is being done, even when the labour-only sector is levied at a rate of 2 per cent. That does not make up sufficiently for the failure of a large part of the industry to train.
Let me give some figures. The Minister will be aware that, in 1979, 30 per cent. of the construction industry was accounted for by one-person firms. Within six years, that shot up to 40 per cent. At the other end of the scale, in 1979, 20 per cent. of firms had between eight and 24 employees. In 1985, that had fallen to 10 per cent. of firms employing between eight and 24 employees. At the top level, in 1979, 6.7 per cent. of firms were the large companies that most people know, employing over 25 employees. By 1985 that had fallen to 4.5 per cent.
There has been a real change in the nature of the construction industry, to which the CITB has not been allowed to adapt. The Government have been completely unaware of the need to do something dramatic to change the nature of training in the industry. There has been a downward spiral of training due to the growth of small firms who are out of scope, and labour-only subcontractors.
Another reason why the levy is not reaching the parts that it needs to reach is that the crisis in the construction industry has been aggravated by the Government's attitude towards local authorities and direct labour organisations. The Conservative party does not like local government or DLOs. But the DLOs do a wonderful job and they do a particularly good job in training.
Let me give one figure. In Greater London, the DLOs account for 14 per cent. of the construction work, but for 35 per cent. of training. The Government's persistent war on local authorities and direct labour organisations means that their ability to operate as such and their capacity to train have been severely affected. That is another reason for the training crisis in construction.
258
Moreover, the crisis that the construction industry faces because of the catastrophic shortage of skills will soon be accelerated. Just before Christmas, the Secretary of State announced yet another review of the skill centre network, which has been under attack from the Government for the past eight years. The Government have closed a third of the skill centres and have very little sympathy or patience with what is left of the network. They refuse to understand that the skill centre network represents the major opportunity for adult training in many of the traditional skills, as well as in the new technology skills.
Let us consider the impact of the skill centres on the levy and the inability of the levy to cope. The fact of the matter is that the skill centre network provides a large percentage of the skilled workers entering the construction industry. Only last year, the Under-Secretary's predecessor said at the Dispatch Box that a crisis package of 4,000 new trainees must enter the construction industry. He had had talks with the CITB. Of the 4,000, 2,000 were to be provided by the CITB in new YTS places. That came about, and more power to the CITB's elbow for delivering those 2,000. One thousand were to come from other providers—mainly private providers of youth training in the construction industry.
It is interesting to note that only 250 of the promised 1,000 came on stream. The remaining 1,000 places, which were to be financed partly by the levy, were to come from the skill centres. The Minister will know that the skill centres delivered the extra places. In the financial year 1986–87, skill centres trained 16,400 people in the essential construction skills of bricklaying, carpentry and painting and decorating — 7,400 unemployed people on MSC-sponsored schemes and 9,000 adults already in employment. Such training and retraining are vital in an industry that is undergoing much change.
What can the CITB do, and how can the levy system be used, to meet the crisis that we are facing in the construction industry, which is as real as for any other industry? It is scandalous in those sectors that no longer have statutory training bodies. The recent Anderson report, which the Minister should know well, points out that, whereas there is a handful of good non-statutory training bodies, most of them have been dismal failures. Large sections of British industry now fail to train to an adequate standard to keep us in competition with our French, German and other industrial competitors.
There is a collapse of training throughout British industry, and the construction industry is not immune to the problem. Skilled workers are not available now and soon with large schemes such as Canary wharf, the Channel tunnel, Sizewell B, the expansion of Stansted airport and the extension of the M25, the absence of the skilled people needed will be catastrophic. We are already feeling the absence of those skills, but they will be felt much more severely by this time next year.
A recent estimate shows that the Canary wharf scheme alone will require 15 per cent. of the manpower of our construction industry. The impact of that one scheme alone will be incredible. A recent survey of the Federation of Master Builders showed that 45 per cent. of its members were having difficulty finding qualified workers. Even with all the schemes that I have mentioned coming on stream, there is a crisis. Therefore, I am surprised that the Minister has been relatively complacent about what has been going

259
on. The order comes through; he thinks that it is a good thing; he has laid on hands this evening, but he has not said one word about the crisis that we face.
In my final comments, I should like to suggest some answers to the crisis. What can the Government, the CITB and the levy system do to meet the situation? The Government's panic this time last year—they did panic — was too little, too late: 4,000 new trainees were not nearly enough even at that stage. Firm action on labour-only supply must be taken now; the legitimised lump, as it has become, will succeed in undermining the training system in the construction industry.
Although the answers are not simple, some action must be taken on one-person business exemptions and on the limit of £15,000 in turnover, because, as the Minister said, that is 51 per cent. of the industry. There must be a system whereby every employee in the construction industry is involved in training and comes within the purview of the industrial training board. The Government could tackle the way in which that is done. With the analysis and the new review of finance and training with which the Manpower Services Commission has just come forward, I believe that here is the opportunity to look again at strengthening the power of the CITB so that all employees in the construction industry will be covered.
Moreover, because of the picture that I have painted this evening, I believe that there is a need for a dramatic emergency programme to target particular regions and sectors to ensure that the shortages that I have described do not become a disaster for the great construction projects that are in hand. In docklands, for example, we must be able to find ways of training the people in Newham and Tower Hamlets, where there is 20 per cent. male unemployment. Those people must be trained to help in the task facing the construction industry. In our country, which still has dreadful levels of unemployment in its city centres—even in London—it must be possible to find a way of training those unemployed people to take part in such efforts.
In conclusion, I am afraid that the bullet that the Government are too ideologically blinkered to bite is that of contract compliance. If they really want to do something about the construction industry and training, they must say to a firm that wants to tender for work on large public or private contracts, "You will not get a contract unless you can show that you are training, and that every person on a site is eligible for training and has training and retraining as part of their individual contracts."
It is absurd that, when we still have massive unemployment, we have such dreadful skill shortages which will, as I have said, endanger the growth of our economy and the stimulation that many of those great projects offer. I do not want to discuss only Canary wharf, the Channel tunnel and the other great projects, but to return to the simple fact that many people in this country live in squalor — be it in public or private housing —largely due to the absence of skilled workers to renovate and refurbish their houses.
Of course we shall not oppose the motion tonight, but we believe that the Government must take in hand the crisis of training that lies beneath the issues that we have discussed.
11.10 pm
Mr. Nicholls: In all fairness, I should reply briefly to the speech that the hon. Member for Huddersfield (Mr. Sheerman) has just made. It is a great tribute to his eloquence that, in what might have been a narrow debate, he has been able to make a wide-ranging speech. I do not criticise him for that.
The hon. Gentleman admires the work done by the CITB, and I associate myself with his admiration. It will come as no news to the CITB that the hon. Gentleman feels as he does, but it will be pleased to hear him say so again. He said that there was a chronic skills shortage throughout the industry, and lays the responsibility for that at the Government's door. That cannot be right, because the main responsibility for training must lie in the hands of the employers. Going back to the 1970s, one can see that the economic state of the country was so parlous that it was not much good telling employers then that they should be thinking of the future and of investing in training. A great many of them, under the Governments of that time, were not so much investing in training as trying to keep their heads above water.
Mercifully, we now live in a different climate, but the damage done over the years cannot be repaired in a few moments. The skill shortages are more complicated than the hon. Gentleman would have us believe. It is inevitable that there will be skill shortages in parts of the country in an industry as diverse as the building industry. Having said that, however, there are grounds for optimism. A great deal of taxpayers' money is provided. Well over £1 billion is spent on YTS training, and well over £1.5 billion is spent on training in general. The CITB is responsible for the biggest YTS training agency. It has 22,000 trainees under training out of a total complement in the industry at large of about 62,000 trainees. That augurs well for the future.
The hon. Gentleman complained about the decline of traditional apprenticeships. I understand his point, but times move on. There are ways into the building industry now other than through the traditional craft apprenticeships. The hon. Gentleman would acknowledge that, too. One can, for instance, discuss the role increasingly played by those who enter the industry as site surveyors, planners, buyers, estimators, site engineers, civil engineers, production managers, quantity surveyors, structural engineers, and so on. All those people play an increasing part in a changing building and construction industry, but do not enter it via traditional apprenticeships. Even a substantial number of those now in YTS training use that training as a foundation course before going on to an apprenticeship.
The Government are putting a vast amount of taxpayers' money into providing the infrastructure necessary for training, and are doing the initial pump priming in YTS and other schemes. However, in the end training is a matter for the employers.
Not for the first or the last time, the hon. Gentleman and I differ over the future of the boards. Honest men will sometimes honestly differ. Speaking rhetorically, so that I do not provoke him, perhaps I can say that if his attitude to the creation or existence of the CITB were right, he would have to say that all the 16 boards that were quietly laid to rest by the Government and replaced by non-statutory training organisations had been doing a super job—but they clearly had not. At the time, the industry accepted that the CITB was doing a decent job, and the

261
hon. Gentleman has already paid tribute to that. The CITB was perceived to be doing a good job, which is why it survived. The hon. Gentleman is perhaps stretching the imagination and the facts a little too extremely if he believes that in the good old days of the many training boards training was at a higher level. It would be nice if that were the truth; in fact, it is not.
I hope that the hon. Member for Huddersfield will not take it amiss if I take him up on a point of detail regarding his remedy for bringing more people into scope. I can understand him saying that, because the exemption level is at £15,000 and has been so since 1975, there must be fewer and fewer people within scope. However, because there has been a general increase in the economy, with small businesses coming into operation, it is perhaps surprising — certainly it is true — that more and more people have come into scope even though the £15,000 exemption has not been raised since 1975.
The hon. Gentleman is of the opinion that the Government do not like the skill centres and have it in for them. I believe that I can set the hon. Gentleman's mind at rest regarding our motives. Two reports have cast considerable doubt on whether the skill centres are providing the right sort of training at the right sort of price.
The National Audit Office report said that it considered that the MSC's agreement to purchase fixed amounts of training from the Skills Training Agency had resulted in the MSC incurring
"considerably higher total costs for providing training courses".
The Public Accounts Committee noted the action that the MSC was taking to improve value for money in the operation of schemes, but expected it to
"continue its efforts to minimise the diseconomy arising from its agreement with the Skills Training Agency to purchase a fixed amount of training at Skillcentres".
Faced with such evidence, it would have been the height of folly for the Government not to respond.
Without in any sense trying to prejudge the eventual outcome, it was clearly right for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Employment to ensure that outside consultants would consider the matter and decide whether the STA is doing the job that the hon. Gentleman and I would want it to do.
Mr. Sheerman: As a former member of the PAC, I can understand what was said by the Committee and the National Audit Office. However, I do not believe that those quotes should be taken out of context. The skill training network has changed a great deal, but the PAC did not look at the broader fact that the skill centres represent the one agency in the country with proven success in imparting skills to adults. No other organisation or institution has been as successful as those centres.
Mr. Nicholls: If I were to concede those remarks in their entirety, I would be pre-empting the result of the inquiry that we have instituted. I believe that the hon. Gentleman and I would be at one in wanting to see the right type of training delivered to those in need of it at the right price. If there is prima facie evidence to suggest that the MSC is paying too much taxpayers' money — our money and that of our constituents — to the STA, that evidence
262
should be studied. That is as far as it goes. The matter is being considered and I would not like to make any judgments at this stage.
The hon. Gentleman has his doubts about whether the levy goes wide enough. The two main limbs of the order cover firms with a payroll of £15,000, which represents a person and a half. I had better not say a man and a half, as I might be leapt at from other areas of the House—[Interruption.] I understand that the hon. Lady in question is not here.
The levy of f £15,000 covers a small number of employees and although it may, on the basis of the hon. Gentleman's calculation, exclude 51 per cent. of those who would otherwise be in scope, it affects only 2 per cent. of the work force. On the basis that the devil can quote figures for his own purposes, I can find such a figure.
I am sure that the hon. Gentleman did not intend to identify labour-only sub-contracting automatically with the black economy. Although he came up with a nice term of alliteration, "the legitimised lump", I did not take that personally, as I assumed that he was referring to the operation of labour-only sub-contractors.
It is entirely true that, in the very nature of things, labour-only sub-contractors do not usually play as direct and large a part in training as they otherwise might. That is inevitable from the very nature of them. Having said that they are the legitimate part of the industry, they are not the illegitimate part. A swingeing levy is imposed on them. The board has instituted one scheme, the levy grant system, to operate for training those who will be labour-only sub-contractors, and another pilot scheme is operating to that effect.
The hon. Gentleman is right to say that this causes a particular problem, but it is the legitimate end of the problem. The CITB feels that the labour-only subcontractors play their part, through the pilot projects they are operating and the levy imposed.
Mr. Andrew Rowe: Does the Minister agree that one of the problems that dogs the construction industry is that the differential in wages between the highly skilled and semi-skilled or unskilled is too low to allow for the kind of—
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harold Walker): Order. We had better stick to the levy rather than discuss the pay structure in the industry.
Mr. Nicholls: I am tempted to respond to my hon. Friend, but I know from experience that I would not begin to get away with it. I ask my hon. Friend to come and see me later.
The hon. Member for Huddersfield finished where he started, by talking about the necessity to train. That must be entirely right. Billions of pounds of taxpayers' money are being devoted to that end. Training for the construction industry is not a straightforward or routine matter. It is a peripatetic industry, which brings particular problems in its wake. Training must be the responsibility of the employers, and there is increasing evidence to show that employers are matching that responsibility. The Government have a role to play in ensuring that the billions of pounds are spent properly, and there is no doubt that they are fulfilling that role to the full.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,

263
That the draft Industrial Training Levy (Construction Board) (No. 2) Order 1987, which was laid before this House on 1st December, be approved.

Industrial Training

  LOCAL GOVERNMENT FINANCE
  Ordered,
  That the provisions of paragraph (2) of Standing Order No. 84 (Constitution of standing committees), paragraph (1) of Standing Order No. 86 (Nomination of standing committees) and Standing Order No. 101 (Standing Committees on Statutory Instruments, &c.) shall apply to the Code of Local Government Audit Practice for England and Wales as if it were a statutory instrument; and that the said Code be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &c.—[Mr. Lightbown]

  HOUSING (SCOTLAND) BILL
  Ordered,
  That, notwithstanding anything in paragraph (2) of Standing Order No. 84 (Constitution of standing committees) and Standing Order No. 95 (Scottish Standing Committees), the Housing (Scotland) Bill be considered by a Scottish Standing Committee.—[Mr. Lightbown.]

  DARTFORD-THURROCK CROSSING (re-committed) BILL
  Ordered,
  That the Order for Committee be discharged and that the Bill, as amended in the Select Committee, be re-committed to a Standing Committee.—[Mr. Lightbown.]

Cerebral Palsy
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Lightbown.]
11.22 pm
Mr. Tony Baldry: I am sure that whenever a child is born a parent's deepest wish is, "Pray God they be healthy." Alas, through no one's fault, some children do not enjoy full health, and some suffer from cerebral palsy. At present, hundreds of children with grave impairment of their motor co-ordination are destined to remain bedridden or in wheelchairs, unable to sit, stand, walk or achieve even a modest measure of independence.
I started to learn about cerebral palsy only by parents coming to see me to tell me about their hopes for their children's future. Several families in my constituency have children afflicted with cerebral palsy. One extremely courageous mother has three children who are so afflicted.
They came to see me not to whinge but with a message of hope that their children could one day walk and live more independent lives because they had either been to or were going to the Peto Institute in Budapest. Some five families from north Oxfordslaire have been to Budapest. They wanted to make sure that I understood the potential of conductive education and the outstanding achievements that are being made at the Peto Institute.
Many hon. Members have had a far closer involvement than I in trying to ensure the maximum opportunities for children suffering from cerebral palsy. The right hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South (Mr. Ashley) has always been tireless in his efforts on behalf of the disabled and has led an all-party parliamentary campaign to promote conductive education.
My hon. Friend the Member for Wyre Forest (M r. Coombs), before entering the House, was a Birmingham city councillor and was largely responsible for helping to set up the Foundation for Conductive Education in Birmingham. My right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster and Minister of Trade and Industry visited the Peto Institute when he was Minister for Health. The Institute was similarly visited by my hon. and learned Friend the Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office on behalf of the Foreign Office, and in a personal capacity by Lady Howe, the wife of my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs.
Many hon. Members have first-hand experience of helping to raise money for the Foundation for Conductive Education in Birmingham. They include the hon. Members for Walsall, South (Mr. George) and for Coventry, South-East (Mr. IN ellist) and the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, my hon. Friend the Member for Coventry, South-West (Mr. Butcher). I simply seek to add my voice because I have been so greatly impressed by the courage of those constituents of mine who have children afflicted with cerebral palsy, and impressed by the evidence of my own eyes of what has clearly been achieved in Budapest.
When, for example, little Richard Shakespeare was first brought to see me by his parents, I never in my wildest dreams believed that this little boy, who could barely raise his own head unaided, could within a matter of months stand on his own two feet. But the truth is that Richard Shakespeare can now stand on his own two feet with confidence and move his arms naturally, thanks to the

265
training that he has received at the Peto. Institute. I know that there are many children like Richard who have improved beyond their parents' greatest hopes. Credit, in Richard's case, must go to Oxfordshire county council for being prepared to pay Richard's fees in Budapest and for helping with some of the travel costs.
As the House will know, conductive education has been developed in Hungary and is used there as the main basis for the early education of physically handicapped children. The emphasis of the movement is on establishing sufficient control for the individual child to take part in everyday life without the use of artificial aids. Children are allocated to one particular teacher known as the conductor, who takes them through the whole process of education as they grow older.
Conductive education is hard work; it is intensive, with children being taught from the time they wake up in the morning until they go to bed at night. This approach clearly has great success. I understand that the Hungarians estimate that it could help 70 per cent. of all children afflicted with cerebral palsy, across the whole spectrum of the disability range, to achieve self auto-function; in other words, to reach a position where they can live as independently as children of a similar age and can walk with confidence and be able to go to school.
This is a fantastic achievement. There is, of course, the evidence of the experience of those who have been to Budapest and the evidence of our own eyes as to what has been achieved out there. It is clearly good news that the Peto Institute is collaborating with the Foundation for Conductive Education which, as the House knows, is a national charity formed to establish the Hungarian system of conductive education in Britain and collaborating to set up an integrated programme to train conductors and to establish working conductive groups of children. The Peto Institute has undertaken to train British conductors to the same high standard as its own and will co-operate to ensure that conductive education is established and working properly here in Britain. We all have good cause to be grateful to the Peto Institute.
I also have little doubt that what has been achieved by mutual understanding has come about in large part because of the efforts and energy of the staff of the British embassy in Budapest and the Hungarian embassy in London. I understand that a British-Hungarian cultural exchange agreement is to be negotiated in the next few months. It is hoped that it will include a provision that will enable this invaluable co-operation to continue and to expand.
It is also extremely encouraging that the Government have provided a grant of £326,000 to enable Birmingham university to carry out a research evaluation of the Foundation for Conductive Education project over a five-year period. My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Security and her colleagues in the Department of Health and Social Security and the Department of Education and Science, with the help that they have received from Ministers within the Foreign Office, are to be congratulated on the initiatives that they have taken so far. Clearly it is right and proper to ensure that conductive education is evaluated in this country before being more widely available. However, as yet there is no conductive education in this country to evaluate.
266
This project should not be a matter of five years of research, with us then standing back and seeing what has been learned and deciding what to do next. Such an approach could result in the loss of valuable time and momentum and, most important, could affect Britain's relationship with the Peto Institute, and I believe we are the only country with such a close involvement.
The international pressures on the Peto Institute are such that, if we are to maintain the closeness of our involvement, we must have clear commitment. Unless a strong reason appears to question the validity of conductive education, there should be a clear commitment on the part of the Government, in co-operation with others—individuals, charities and local authorities—to secure the future of the Birmingham centre within the next five years and to expand conductive education throughout Britain. That can be done by people from this country being trained in Budapest and, in turn, returning to train to the same high standard further conductors here. Then, by that cascade effect, conductive education could be available throughout the country.
Britain is at present the only country that is involved so closely with the Peto Institute. We thus have a wonderful opportunity to ensure that good conductive education may become established here. It would be a tragedy if we lost that opportunity and the momentum that has been established with the Peto Institute.
It is difficult for a fit person to imagine how frustrating it must be for a child to be confined to a wheelchair and to have difficulty moving about. While conductive education cannot help all children afflicted by cerebral palsy, it is clear that it can help many. It is difficult to calculate the costs of the special educational requirements of children who are confined to wheelchairs or who have severe difficulty in moving about. Those costs must, however, be far greater in the long term than any short-term costs involved in those children being given the benefit of conductive education here in Britain.
The Government have demonstrated their willingness to support conductive education. Let us make clear our determination to make conductive education available throughout Britain as soon as possible so that children like Richard Shakespeare may also get up and stand and walk on their own two feet. I ask for nothing more and nothing less than a commitment to make the introduction here of conductive education a firm policy objective.
11.32 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Security (Mrs. Edwina Currie): I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Banbury (Mr. Baldry) on his success in the ballot and on raising the question of the valuable treatment known as conductive education which is being undertaken at the Peto Institute in Budapest.
As my hon. Friend pointed out, we have received a number of favourable reports about the Peto Institute from Members in all parts of the House. He referred to the visit made to the institute by the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster in November 1984 when he was Minister for Health. I am also aware of the favourable comments made by the Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office, my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Putney (Mr. Mellor), when he visited the institute in the autumn of last year with Lady Howe, the wife of the Foreign Secretary. Other Members have also visited the Peto Institute or taken an interest in the development of

267
conductive education in this country, and my hon. Friend the Member for Banbury referred in his speech to several of them.
We are aware that about 70 families with children now attend the Peto Institute and are currently living in Budapest. Of those, we think that about 40 are British, the rest coming from other countries. The total school roll is about 750 children and 250 adults. It is sometimes forgotten that much of the work of the institute is with adults who have motor impairment, perhaps as the result of an accident, and I am also interested in aspects of that work.
I am sure that my hon. Friend will join me in paying tribute to the tremendous efforts of Her Majesty's ambassador in Budapest, and his wife, Mr. and Mrs. Appleyard, in providing help and comfort to the United Kingdom families there. I understand in particular that Mrs. Appleyard has regular weekly lunches to enable the families to meet together, and I wish to put on record our appreciation to her for her efforts.
It has to be recognised that the extent to which it is possible to help United Kingdom nationals who voluntarily leave this country to seek treatment abroad is constrained by the statutes laid down by this House. Perhaps it will do no harm, and some good, if I remind families that, except in the most restricted and extreme circumstances, Ministers in this Department have no power to pay for treatment of this kind in most other countries. My colleagues in the Department of the Environment have no powers to pay for accommodation, nor do their own local authorities. My colleagues in the Department of Education and Science are similarly constrained.
According to a letter that was sent recently to the Oxfordshire local education authority by Mr. Sawtell from the Department of Education and Science, there may even be some difficulty if the local education authorities pay, since the definition of "school" under the current legislation seems to apply only to schools in this country. However, some local education authorities make such payments. I recognise that the local education authorities take their own legal advice and that some, such as Oxfordshire, have decided to proceed.
We are therefore doing a kindness by warning families that, if they choose to go to Hungary or, indeed, anywhere else, we have no power to assist them; nor do the Hungarian authorities have any obligation to remit fees, to find or pay for accommodation or transport, or anything else. Before families commit themselves to spending a year or more in another country with a very different culture and language, however kind people are to them while they are there, we hope that they will give careful thought to these points.
Some United Kingdom social security benefits may continue, if the beneficiary goes abroad specifically for medical treatment—for example, attendance allowance, mobility allowance and invalidity benefit. There should be no problem concerning child benefit in respect of any child attending the institute, provided that there is a responsible adult in the United Kingdom to whom the benefit can be paid. However, child benefit in respect of other children accompanying a disabled child to Budapest can only be paid for up to eight weeks.
Some parents have reported difficulty over renewing benefits while abroad, since more than one office must be contacted. To help to simplify matters, we have introduced
268
some common rules and we shall do what we can to help them, but again we are somewhat constrained by the different statutes that cover the various benefits concerned.
I am very concerned about the appalling pressure on families in these circumstances and on the family members, including children, who have to stay behind. There have been divorces. The price that some people have to pay has been very high indeed. Nevertheless, I should like to put on record our thanks to the Peto Institute for the kindness that it has shown to the families and children concerned, and also our appreciation to the Hungarian authorities. We shall bear my hon. Friend's remarks in mind as we renegotiate regularly the various agreements that we have with the authorities in Hungary.
The technique of conductive education as practised at the Peto Institute is the main system of early education for physically handicapped children in Hungary, where it is regarded as a necessity that a child should be able to walk to school if he or she wishes to receive normal education with able-bodied children. No such rule exists here, and disabled children are readily integrated into normal schools, following the Warnock reforms earlier in the 1980s. The technique is quite intensive and can require a child to be resident in the institute.
The work goes on throughout working hours, so it is hardly surprising if some children show considerable improvement. The institute can be highly selective, and it is probably right that it should be selective. We do not . expect any one technique to be universally successful for all conditions. We have no reason to doubt its success rate, as claimed, of about 70 per cent. of children being able o attend normal schools after treatment, but there are quite a number of questions that we should wish to have answered relating to the techniques that are used at the Peto Institute.
For example, to what extent does the technique concentrate on certain aspects of disability — for example, motor development, or incontinence — at the expense of something that we would regard as important, which is all-round social development? What does the institute do about the more severely or multiple handicapped children? If there is no chance of a child ever walking again, or if the treatment fails, are children then regarded as ineducable — as, for example, Down's syndrome children were regarded in this country until quite recently?
What is the procedure? Is there an alternative procedure if the child has difficulty in communicating or understanding the commands of the conductor? What long-term follow-up arrangements are provided in the community? What happens if a child, for example, has a condition that is subject to a relapse, or if he has a degenerative problem? In other words, we need to know whether the effect is lasting.
We also need to know why the institute excludes epileptics. We need to know to what extent the high degree of concentrated service input at the institute contributes to the success of the type of education that is provided. We need to know what is the role of the parents. Other schemes—for example, the Philadelphia system — rely very heavily on parents and helpers. It may be that we should need to take on board messages and lessons from more than one scheme.
Given those two main concerns, there are many unanswered questions. We are concerned about families

269
who feel obliged to go abroad. I feel very sympathetic to what my hon. Friend has said about doing the work here. Recently, with my hon. Friend the Member for Wyre Forest (Mr. Coombs), a junior Minister at the Department of Education and Science, I met some of the families concerned in the campaign to bring conductive education to this country. On behalf of both Departments I say that we do not wish to stand in the way of any techniques that would assist disabled people, including children with cerebral palsy, spina bifida or any condition that would benefit from improved techniques.
When the BBC television programmes were broadcast, therapists in this country, for example, in Preston, protested that the techniques were available here and were being used to benefit people. In that respect, therefore, it seemed wise to take the following approach. The Government have involved themselves in two studies. My hon. Friend has already referred to the Birmingham project. He is probably aware that I am acquainted with a large number of the people who are interested in that project. I am delighted to join him in the tribute he paid to my hon. Friend the Member for Wyre Forest (Mr. Coombs), who was my fellow councillor in Birmingham for a number of years, for his efforts to get something set up.
The research project arose out of the Anglo-Hungarian cultural agreement, which was signed in Budapest on 21 March 1986 under the auspices of the British Council, involving Birmingham university and the Teachers' Training and Education Institute for the Motor Disabled in Hungary. Because of the need to approach the development of conductive education in a systematic way,
270
it was decided that the Government could best assist the four-year research project being undertaken by Birmingham university to train conductors in the Peto method of conductive education by funding the evaluation of the project.
As my hon. Friend has said, the Government therefore provided some £326,000 over five years for the evaluation. I understand that the first batch of 10 teachers selected for the research project either have gone or will shortly be going to Budapest for part of their training. We hope that some valuable information comes out of the study. I share my hon. Friend's view that if we get good news more quickly than five years, we should be able to act on it.
Apart from this, the DHSS and the DES have jointly funded a survey by the Spastics Society into the extent to which aspects of conductive education are being practised in the United Kingdom. Findings are expected to be available later this year.
I hope that the approach I have outlined shows what progress has been made in the past 12 months or so in the United Kingdom. We look forward with interest, enthusiasm and great sympathy to the results of the studies and to hearing more from families who have benefited from the work at Peto and perhaps from those who have not had the opportunity to benefit, despite having had their children assessed there. It is also helpful to know about the failures because that helps us better to understand the successes.
I am most grateful to my hon. Friend for raising this important issue and giving us a chance to put on record our policy as it stands at the moment.
Question put and agreed to.
Adjourned accordingly at eighteen minutes to Twelve o'clock.

WALES

  Public Appointments
  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will list the names of all the people appointed to public bodies by his Department who are currently in office, giving for each the office concerned and the date of appointment.

  Mr. Wyn Roberts
  This information could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Hedgerows
  Mr. Geraint Howells
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many miles of hedgerows have been lost in Wales during the last 10 years; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Peter Walker
  Information is not available over this time scale. Results from the monitoring landscape change survey conducted by Huntings Technical Services and published in 1986 indicated that hedgerow length in Wales fell from approximately 77,688 miles in 1969 to approximately 70,850 miles in 1985.

  Bistre Nursery School, Buckley
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what extra funds he will make available to the Clwyd local eduction authority in order that Bistre nursery school, Buckley, Clwyd, neither suffers cuts in its provision to the Buckley community nor faces the prospect of closure.

  Mr. Wyn Roberts
  It is for the Clwyd local education authority to determine its own priorities within the resources available to it. No statutory proposals for the future of the Bistre nursery school have been published by the authority.

  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will visit the Bistre nursery school, to meet members of staff, county councillors and parent governors; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Wyn Roberts
  We have no plans to visit Bistre nursery school.

  Rating Reform
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if poll tax will be levied against the sisters of the Poor Clare's monastery, Ty Mam Duw, Aston Hall lane, Hawarden, Deeside, Clwyd; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Peter Walker
  The position of members of religious communities in relation to their liability for the community charge is under consideration. A decision will be announced in due course.

  Assistance to Industry
  Mr. Nicholas Bennett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will make a statement on his plans for financial assistance to industry in Wales.

  Mr. Peter Walker
  I shall publish tomorrow a statement entitled "Enterprise Wales"/"Menter Cymru" and will place copies in the Library of the House. This will describe my plans for increasing expenditure by the Welsh Office on industry in Wales in the next financial year. It will set out changes to the industrial grant regime, including the ending of regional development grant and the introduction of a number of new grant schemes. I have no plans to change the geographical coverage of assisted areas and regional selective assistance will continue to be available in these areas. I shall also be making increased resources available for development agency work. I am confident that the new programme will foster the enterprise spirit and achieve significant improvements in the competitiveness of Welsh industry.

PRIME MINISTER

  Polish Foreign Minister
  Mr. Madel
  To ask the Prime Minister what matters she discussed with the Polish Foreign Minister on 8 December; and if she will make a statement.

  The Prime Minister
  My meeting with the Polish Foreign Minister on 8 December was friendly and constructive. We discussed bilateral and international matters, and the internal situation in Poland following the recent referendum. As the House knows, Professor Orzechowski renewed his authorities' invitation to me to visit Poland, which I accepted. I hope the visit will take place during the first half of this year.

  RAF Greenham Common
  Mr. Cryer
  To ask the Prime Minister when she next expects to pay an official visit to RAF Greenham Common.

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

  Yorkshire
  Mr. Robert Banks
  To ask the Prime Minister if she will pay an official visit to Yorkshire.

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

  Registration of Deaths
  Mr. Barry Field
  To ask the Prime Minister why the system for registration of deaths in England differs from that in Scotland.

  The Prime Minister
  The death registration systems in England and Scotland are governed by separate statutory provisions which arise from differences in the legal systems of the two countries and from the different functions of the office of coroner and procurator fiscal.

  Northern Ireland
  Mr. Beggs
  To ask the Prime Minister what information she has about regional variations in retail and
  191
  wholesale prices charged by major companies, with particular reference to Northern Ireland; what is her estimate of the effect of higher prices in Northern Ireland on the level of public expenditure there; what account is taken of these factors in determining social, employment and other policies in the Province; and if she will make a statement.

  The Prime Minister
  Price indices are not compiled on a regional basis. The level of public expenditure in Northern Ireland is determined by a wide range of factors which take into account the Province's particular circumstances including, where appropriate, prices and also wider national policies. The needs of Northern Ireland are reflected in the fact that public expenditure per capita on comparable programmes is substantially higher than elsewhere in the United Kingdom. Social, employment and other policies are similarly framed to take all relevant factors into account, including prices where appropriate, within the framework of national policy.

  Public Appointments
  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Prime Minister if she will list the names of all the people appointed to public bodies by her who are currently in office, giving for each the office concerned and the date of appointment.

  The Prime Minister
  This information could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Nigeria
  Mr. Parry
  To ask the Prime Minister if she will make a statement on her recent visit to Nigeria.

  The Prime Minister
  I paid a visit to Nigeria on 7 and 8 January at the invitation of President Babangida. In the course of this I had a long and very useful talk with the President, which covered all aspects of our bilateral relations as well as regional and international questions. I took the opportunity to express our strong support for Nigeria's economic recovery programme. I also put on record publicly the very positive practical contribution which Britain is making in southern Africa. I believe that the visit has contributed to strengthening our relations. I am particularly grateful for the very warm and friendly welcome which I received from many thousands of ordinary people.

  Engagements
  Mr. Butler
  To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 12 January.

  Mr. Harry Greenway
  To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 12 January.

  Mr. Stern
  To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 12 January.
  192
  Mr. Atkinson
  To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 12 January.

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

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Metropolitan Police
  Mr. Soley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) what special features and factors are taken into account by the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis in the staffing allocation formula referred to in the annual report for 1986;

  (2) what criteria are used by the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis as the basis for the formula for the allocation of police amongst the Metropolitan police areas referred to in his annual report for 1986.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  I understand from the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis that the manpower allocation formula is used as a means of allocating the number of uniformed police constables available between the eight areas of the Metropolitan police district on an equitable basis. The formula takes account of the general demands on divisions including calls for police assistance, the level of crime, the demands of crime prevention and traffic control, and the number of traffic accidents. It covers also commitments not directly related to local demand such as the need to provide area and divisional support staff, mounted officers, dog handlers, courts' staff and coroners' officers, and special factors such as airports, the Palace of Westminster and major housing estates.

  Mr. Soley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what indicators are used by the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis to assess the demand for police staffing levels other than the formula referred to in his annual report for 1986.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  The Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis takes account of a number of factors in assessing the manpower requirements of the force. These include specific demands such as reported crime, traffic accidents, public order and requests by the public for police assistance; and the extent to which the commissioner considers it necessary to undertake a variety of policing activities including the provision of a visible presence on the streets, involvement in community projects and measures against, for example, street robberies and organised crime. Within the framework of the programme of annual manpower increases which my right hon. Friend announced in May 1986, manpower requirements are assessed in an annual manpower review which examines the use being made of existing manpower and future manpower needs.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Public Appointments
  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list the names of all the people appointed to public bodies by his Department who are currently in office, giving for each the office concerned and the date of appointment.

  Mr. Hurd
  This information could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Party Conferences (Policing Costs)
  Mr. Pike
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he proposes to make any changes in Government funding for the policing cost of annual party political conferences in 1988.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  We have no plans to do so.

  Police Manpower (Leicester)
  Mr. Janner
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what representation he has received requesting additional police for Leicester.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  We have not recently received an application by the police authority for an increase in the authorised police establishment of the Leicestershire constabulary. My right hon. Friend will be prepared to consider any such application that may be put to him, in the light of advice from Her Majesty's Inspector of Constabulary.

  Neighbourhood Watch Schemes
  Mr. Chapman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if there are any plans to extend further the number of neighbourhood watch schemes; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. John Patten
  There are already over 42,000 neighbourhood watch schemes in England and Wales. They provide clear and welcome evidence of the public's willingness to help the police to prevent crime. We are sure that there is scope for the further development of the neighbourhood watch concept and for the establishment of new schemes. The Home Office is therefore preparing a further guidance note on neighbourhood watch which will draw examples of good practice from across the country to help and encourage those who are thinking of setting up new schemes or of expanding the range of activity within existing ones.

  Charities
  Mr. Teddy Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many charities have been investigated by the Charities Commission in each of the past three years on the issue of whether the charities concerned were incurring expenditure on non-charitable purposes; and what was the outcome of these inquiries.

  Mr. John Patten
  Information in the form requested is not available. However, I understand from the Charity Commission that of 1,000 complaints received by the 194
  charity commissioners in the 12 months to 31 July 1987 180 arose from allegations of dishonesty or fraud on the part of trustees, their agents or employees, or of trustees benefitting improperly from their trust. A further 80 complaints alleged inadvertant or deliberately improper political activities including the expenditure of charitable monies on such activities. In nine of these latter cases action was taken following investigations. In eight cases advice was given to trustees about campaigning. In the remaining case the commission required the cost of advertisements judged to be political in nature to be repaid to the charity. Similar information is not available for previous years.

  Ministerial Visit (North Africa)
  Mr. Parry
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on his recent visit to North Africa.

  Mr. Hurd
  I visited Tunisia from 3–6 January arid Morocco from 6–10 January at the invitation of the Ministers of the Interior in both countries. With the object of further strengthening bilateral cooperation, our discussion centred upon combating international terrorism, organised crime and drug trafficking.

  A joint communiqué on these matters was issued on 6 January on behalf of the British and Tunisian Governments. The Minister of the Interior of the Government of the Kingdom of Morocco and I signed a memorandum of understanding between our two Governments on 7 January. Texts of both documents will be placed in the Library. During my visit I had the honour to be received by His Majesty King Hassan II of Morocco and by President Zine el Abidene Ben Ali of Tunisia.

  I believe that these visits illustrated the increased arid specific openings which now exist for reinforcing in practical ways our traditional friendships with Tunisia arid Morocco.

  Local Radio
  Mr. Thurnham
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement about split frequency broadcasting on local radio.

  Mr. Hurd
  As noted in our Green Paper "Radio: Choices and Opportunities", published in February 1987, local radio services normally broadcast the same programme on medium wave and VHF/FM frequencies. Approval has, however, been given from time to time to the broadcasting of separate programmes on the two frequencies for a limited period to meet local needs, and in 1985 the Government approved an experiment in which selected BBC and independent local radio (ILR) stations undertook split frequency broadcasting for up to 10 hours a week. The experiment enabled the stations to address specialist or majority audiences, to provide alternative speech or music services and to offer a different emphasis in their programmes.

  The experiment has been successful in achieving these aims, and listeners have welcomed the enhanced range of choice that it allowed. In the light of the experiment, the BBC and IBA have suggested that local radio stations should be able to split frequencies at any time at the discretion of the broadcasting authorities. This approach would be consistent with the proposals in our Green Paper, which were that simulcasting — the automatic

  195
  broadcasting of the same programme on two frequencies — should be phased out. I have therefore given my approval to the proposals from the BBC and IBA, and invited them to proceed with split frequency broadcasting.

ENVIRONMENT

  Land Disposal
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what guidance his Department issues to local authorities on tendering to get the best price when disposing of land assets.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  None. Except where special provisions apply, as in the case of disposals pursuant to the right to buy, a local authority may dispose of land held by it in any manner it wishes, but it must obtain the Secretary of State's consent for any disposal for a consideration less than the best that can reasonably be obtained. It is for the local authority to consider what professional advice it should receive when it contemplates the sale of a particular site.

  Mr. Pike
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many times in the last 12 months he has used his powers to direct councils to dispose of any land held by them.

  Mr. Chope
  Under section 98 of the Local Government, Planning and Land Act 1980, the Secretary of State may direct certain public bodies to dispose of the interest held by them in any land entered on the register, compiled by him under section 95 of that Act. He has used that power 25 times in the past 12 months in respect of land owned by local authorities.

  Public Appointments
  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list the names of all the people appointed to public bodies by his Department who are currently in office, giving for each the office concerned and the date of appointment.

  Mr. Ridley
  This information could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  London Docklands Development Corporation
  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment whether the undertakings given by the deputy chairman of the London Docklands Development Corporation in his letter to the Docklands Forum of 24 September 1987 still apply, following his removal from office.

  Mr. Trippier
  Yes.

  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when he expects to announce the name of the new deputy chairman of the London Docklands Development Corporation; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Trippier
  Soon.

  London City Airport
  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment (1) if any discussions have taken place 196
  between his Department and the London Docklands Development Corporation on the use of London City airport by jet aircraft; and if he will make a statement;

  (2) if any consideration is being given by the Civil Aviation Authority or his Department to the use of BAe 146–200 aircraft at London City airport; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Trippier
  No proposals have been put to the Department about the use of jets at London City airport. The Department has, however, on a contingency basis sought and received assurances from LDDC that any planning applications concerning future uses of the airport will be drawn to the Department's attention. The only discussions which have taken place have concerned safeguarding arrangements.

  Departmental Publications
  Mr. Andrew MacKay
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what plans he has to make available his Department's publications "Grant-Related Expenditure 1988–89" and "The Technical Handbook of Grant-Related Expenditure 1988–89".

  Mr. Chope
  My right hon. Friend has today placed copies of these documents in the Library of the House. Copies have also been sent to every local authority in England, and to the local authority associations.

  Rating Reform
  Mr. Rooker
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if, pursuant to his answer of 15 December,Official Report, column 458, and 16 December, Official Report, columns 521–22, he will give details of the calculations used to assess the contribution to local services via the grant system from national taxation of the 10 per cent. of households with the highest incomes compared to that of the 10 per cent. with lowest incomes.

  Mr. Howard
  [holding answer 11 January 1988]: Using a sample of households grouped into deciles of gross income, the calculations involved the following stages:

  (i) Calculate the amount of local spending funded by national taxation as a multiple of income from domestic rates (less rebates).

  (ii) Taking the figure produced by (i), calculate the amount of national taxation accounted for by centrally funded contributions to local taxation.

  (iii) Calculate the amount produced by (ii) as a proportion of total national taxation.

  (iv) Assuming that the proportion at (iii) applied equally to all households, estimate the amount of national taxation paid as a contribution to local authority spending by the top and bottom deciles of households by income.

  Water Industry
  Ms. Richardson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment (1) what steps he intends to take to enable consumers in the water industry to charge suppliers in the event of unsatisfactory service;

  (2) what arrangements will be taken to ensure that water public limited companies replace and update mains in order to minimise flooding, interruptions of supply and the potential for pollution;
  197
  (3) what powers he plans to seek to ensure that necessary levels of capital expenditure are spent on water and sewage infrastructure in the final years of a water public limited company's licence period;

  (4) what legal sanctions will be available against those water public limited companies which fail to provide a wholesome or adequate water supply; who will be able to employ such sanctions; and who will define whether or not a supply is adequate;

  (5) what duties there will be on water public limited companies to make interim arrangements for alternative supplies and to provide appropriate information to consumers in the event of mains repairs, bursts or other interruptions of normal supply;

  (6) what arrangements will be made to provide compensation for householders for damage arising from faulty or leaking mains in the event of water privatisation;

  (7) whether, in the event of privatisation of the water industry, water public limited companies will have a similar duty to that now exercised by the water undertakers to provide, wherever possible, supplies of water for fire-fighting purposes; and whether the existing mains in tall buildings such as tower blocks will he fitted with water meters to assist in fire fighting;

  (8) how the privatisation of the water industry will affect the maintaining and regulatory functions of local authorities with regard to water and sewage in pipes and drains, ponds, cesspools, and so on;

  (9) what arrangements are being made for the control of rats in sewers and the proper maintenance and repair of sewers in the event of water privatisation.

  Mr. Moynihan
  [holding answer 11 January 1988]: The privatised water utility companies will have obligations towards their customers identical in most respects to those of the water authorities at present. However, consultation papers issued in 1986 proposed changes in water and sewerage law and in the law relating to drinking water quality. The legislation to privatise the authorities will take those changes into consideration. Local authority responsibilities in respect of non-mains drainage and drinking water quality will be unchanged. The legislation and the system of regulation will ensure that water utility companies provide an effective service to customers

  Country

  1982 tonnes

  1983 tonnes

  1984 tonnes

  1985 tonnes

  1986 tonnes

  Scotland

  498,187

  499,121

  543,312

  592,570

  551,290

  England

  237,130

  220,676

  163,940

  137,891

  136,332

  Wales

  14,040

  9,819

  7,851

  9,005

  9,603

  Northern Ireland

  25,278

  18,806

  18,549

  22,587

  20,481

  Public Appointments
  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will list the names of all the people appointed to public bodies by his Department who are currently in office, giving for each the office concerned and the date of appointment.

  Mr. Donald Thompson
  This information could be provided only at disproportionate cost.
  198
  throughout the period of their appointments. The legislation to privatise the water authorities, which will be introduced as soon as possible, will take those changes into consideration.

  Housing White Paper
  Mr. Soley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment whether he will put copies of the responses to the consultation exercise on the housing White Paper in the Library.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  [pursuant to his reply, 16 November 1987, c. 419]; I have today placed in the Library of the House a copy of responses we have so far received to the housing White Paper and related consultation documents from those respondents who have indicated that they are content for their views to be made public.

AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

  Hedgerows
  Mr. Cummings
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, pursuant to his reply of 4 November,Official Report, column 723, if he has any proposals to make the 60 per cent. grant for the provision, replacement or improvement of hedgerows available to local authorities; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Donald Thompson
  I have no powers to pay grant to local authorities.

  Fish
  Mr. John D. Taylor
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what is the total tonnage of fish landed in(a) Scotland, (b) England, (c) Wales and (d) Northern Ireland in each of the past five years.

  Mr. Donald Thompson
  The following shows the total tonnage of fish caught by British vessels and landed in Scotland, England, Wales and Northern Ireland over the years 1982 to 1986 (information for 1987 is not yet available).

  EC (Free Food)
  Sir Hector Monro
  To ask the Secretary of State for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food whether he has yet. completed his consideration of the implications of the European Community free food scheme; and whether he will make a statement.

  Mr. MacGregor
  The scheme provides for member states to make available to designated organisations food from intervention stores for distribution to the most needy. The Government continue to believe that such a scheme is an inappropriate way of dealing with the
  199
  surpluses, but do not wish to deprive these United Kingdom citizens of having the possibility of arrangements available to consumers in the Community as a whole.

  The Government have therefore considered how the scheme could be applied in this country. We have decided to make butter and beef available, subject to Commission authorisation, in response to specific applications received from charitable or non-profit-making organisations which meet appropriate conditions. Quantities made available would be limited to amounts specifically authorised by the European Commission within the finance available. The Commission has said that up to about £10 million worth of product could be authorised for distribution in the United Kingdom in 1988. I am arranging for further details of the arrangements to be sent today to the relevant representative bodies, and I am placing a copy of this information in the Library.

DEFENCE

  Geo-magnetism
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what use his Department makes of research conducted in the United Kingdom into problems of geo-magnetism; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  The sea and air charts and land maps produced by MOD show magnetic declination and its annual change. These values come from five-yearly epoch global data sets produced in part by British Geological Survey and part by the United States Naval Oceanographic Office as a joint project. The basic data come from magnetic observations worldwide.

  In 1986 MOD commissioned British Geological Survey to produce a regional magnetic model for Europe.

  Public Appointments
  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list the names of all the people appointed to public bodies by his Department who are currently in office, giving for each the office concerned and the date of appointment.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  This information could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Air/Sea Rescue Services
  Mrs. Margaret Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list in the Official Report those organisations his Department has consulted in the evaluation of air/sea rescue services; and if he is yet in a position to make a statement.

  Mr. Freeman
  The study into proposals put forward by Bristow Helicopters Ltd., suggesting that the search and rescue helicopter service currently provided by the RAF and RN should be put to commercial contract, has been conducted within the Ministry of Defence. A number of external organisations have made representations to my Department, and these are being fully taken into account in our consideration, which is continuing.

  International Military Supplies Office, Tehran
  Mr. Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, pursuant to his reply of 16 December,Official
  200
  Report, column 536, regarding the International Military Supplies Office in Tehran; what is the purpose of this office; how many people are employed in Tehran; if any Iranian citizens; and what is the address.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  IMS (Iran) Ltd. was set up in 1973. It has its office in Tehran (PO Box 19395/1695). Its activities before the revolution were limited to making administrative arrangements in Iran in support of the various contracts between International Military Services Ltd. and the Iranian Government. Following the revolution the office was kept open with a skeleton staff to assist in processing the negotiation and settlement of previous contracts. This office remains open, although for the present it is on a care-and-maintenance basis, with only one member of staff, an Iranian citizen. The position of the office is reviewed by IMS regularly.

  Defence Contracts
  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, pursuant to his reply of 26 November 1987,Official Report, column 281, if he will give details of (a) the eight companies prosecuted since 1979 over defence contracts and (b) names of the companies still under investigation.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  The eight prosecutions were against individual directors or employees of defence contractors, not the companies.

  Chieftain Tank
  Mr. John Townend
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what are his Department's plans for the replacement of the Chieftain tank.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  Following a re-examination of likely developments in future tank technology the Ministry of Defence has been considering the time scale in which it might need to replace the Chieftain tanks which entered service in BAOR in the middle and late 1960s. As well as reviewing possible overseas options the Ministry is discussing with Vickers Defence Systems Ltd. the possibility of adopting an improved version of the Challenger tank. This would be attractive in terms of commonality and interoperability within the British tank fleet. No decisions have, however, yet been taken on the timing of a Chieftain replacement and the Ministry is continuing seriously to examine both the improved Challenger and other possible options.

  Service Hospitals
  Mr. Jessel
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will provide in the Official Report full lists of (a) all Royal Navy, Army and Royal Air Force hospitals and (b) all service establishments which contain in-patient hospital facilities, listing in each case the number of beds established, the number of beds occupied on any recent convenient date, the nursing establishment and the relative number of nurses currently employed.

  Mr. Freeman
  [pursuant to his reply, 17 December 1987, c. 655]: The additional information for Military hospitals in the United Kingdom is as follows, reflecting the position at 1200 on 6 January 1988:

  201

  RNH

  RNH

  BMH

  BMH

  BMH

  RAF(H)

  RAF(H)

  RAF(H)

  Total

  Haslar

  Plymouth

  Aldershot

  Catterick

  Woolwich

  Ely

  Halton

  Wroughton

  Number of Beds

  Complemented

  (1)

  305

  133

  309

  150

  482

  170

  170

  280

  1,999

  Available

  (2)

  228

  98

  261

  130

  427

  170

  170

  238

  1,722

  Occupied

  (3)

  194

  84

  146

  67

  292

  149

  116

  179

  1,2.27

  Nurses

  Complement

  (4)

  338 (156)

  172 (52)

  240 (21)

  114 (21)

  382 (60)

  170 (28)

  149 (0)

  226 (25)

  1,791 (363)

  Available for wards

  (5)

  185

  92

  255

  64

  309

  136

  127

  167

  1,335

  On duty on day or wards

  (6)

  143

  62

  131

  26

  160

  68

  79

  93

  762

  Notes:

  1. The figures in brackets at line 4 show the number of trainee posts included in the establishment.

  2. Line 5 includes 42 agency staff working 1 shift on the day.

  3. Line 6 shows the total nursing staff on the wards in three shifts.

  4. At the stated time there were 34 trainees temporarily attached to RNH Haslar and 67 trainees temporarily attached to BMH Aldershot from overseas hospitals which were additional to the United Kingdom establishments. This is partly reflected in the imbalance of figures for the BMH Aldershot in lines 4 and 5.

ATTORNEY-GENERAL

  Public Appointments
  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Attorney-General if he will list the names of all the people appointed to public bodies by the Law Officers' Departments who are currently in office, giving for each the office concerned and the date of appointment.

  The Attorney-General
  I make no appointments to public bodies. A list of the names of those appointed by the Lord Chancellor and his Department could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Secondary Schools—England 1985–86

  Expenditure1

  Examination results2

  Per pupil £

  Percentage of leavers achieving defined results

  Ranking

  1 ILEA

  2,085

  16·2

  86

  2 Haringey

  1,710

  21·3

  61

  3 Brent

  1,590

  178

  78

  4 Waltham Forest

  1,540

  12·2

  95

  5 Ealing

  1,460

  15·9

  87

  6 Manchester

  1,425

  17·6

  80

  7 Croydon

  1,355

  24·4

  39

  8 Newcastle-upon-Tyne

  1,345

  15·4

  88

  9 Harrow

  1,340

  43·1

  1

  10 Barnet

  1,330

  40·1

  3

  11 Havering

  1,325

  24·9

  37

  12 Kingston-upon-Thames

  1,325

  41·3

  2

  13 Knowsley

  1,320

  12·3

  94

  14 Hillingdon

  1,315

  20·7

  64

  15 Coventry

  1,310

  21·1

  62

  16 North Tyneside

  1,295

  19·4

  70

  17 Hounslow

  1,290

  20·7

  65

  18 Redbridge

  1,290

  27·3

  18

  19 Rochdale

  1,275

  18·2

  76

  20 Barking

  1,260

  10·0

  96

  21 Sheffield

  1,260

  18·1

  77

  22 Bromley

  1,255

  29·8

  10

  23 South Tyneside

  1,255

  19·7

  68

  24 Liverpool

  1,250

  16·3

  85

  25 Enfield

  1,245

  24·0

  44

  26 Sandwell

  1,230

  14·5

  90

  27 Wigan

  1,230

  29·9

  9

  28 Wolverhampton

  1,225

  13·9

  92

EDUCATION AND SCIENCE

  Education Expenditure
  Mr. Nicholas Bennett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will list all local education authorities in England in rank order of expenditure per secondary pupil per year, starting with the highest spending authority, together with their position in the table of examination results for school leavers achieving five or more O-levels at grades A to C or CSE grade 1, in the latest year for which figures are available.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  The information requested is as follows:
  203

  Expenditure1

  Examination results2

  Per pupil £

  Percentage of leavers achieving defined results

  Ranking

  29 Nottinghamshire

  1,220

  18·4

  72

  30 Leicestershire

  1,205

  21·6

  59

  31 Richmond-upon-Thames

  1,200

  25·2

  34

  32 Salford

  1,200

  21·6

  60

  33 Bexley

  1,195

  25·5

  30

  34 Oxfordshire

  1,190

  23·5

  48

  35 Walsall

  1185

  18·3

  73

  36 Gateshead

  1,185

  20·1

  66

  37 Hertfordshire

  1,180

  29·2

  12

  38 Birmingham

  1,175

  17·5

  81

  39 Bury

  1,175

  26·6

  24

  40 Cleveland

  1,175

  28·1

  13

  41 Barnsley

  1,165

  15·0

  89

  42 Tameside

  1,160

  24·3

  40

  43 Avon

  1,160

  25·5

  31

  44 St. Helens

  1,150

  22·0

  56

  45 Sunderland

  1,150

  18·3

  75

  46 Berkshire

  1,150

  27·3

  17

  47 Doncaster

  1,145

  17·2

  82

  48 Trafford

  1,140

  32·2

  6

  49 Bedfordshire

  1,140

  25·4

  32

  50 Buckinghamshire

  1,140

  30·9

  8

  51 Sutton

  1,135

  27·7

  16

  52 Dudley

  1,125

  20·1

  67

  53 Sefton

  1,125

  25·7

  29

  54 Wirral

  1,125

  22·0

  57

  55 Derbyshire

  1,125

  22·5

  58

  56 Humberside

  1,125

  19·4

  69

  57 Shropshire

  1,125

  24·3

  42

  58 Staffordshire

  1,125

  24·6

  38

  59 Solihull

  1,115

  27·2

  20

  60 Bolton

  1,115

  23·7

  45

  61 Stockport

  1,115

  22·7

  53

  62 Essex

  1,115

  26·0

  27

  63 Calderdale

  1,110

  22·6

  54

  64 North Yorkshire

  1,110

  32·9

  5

  65 Northamptonshire

  1,110

  20·9

  63

  66 Surrey

  1,110

  34·1

  4

  67 Oldham

  1,095

  13·9

  91

  68 Cumbria

  1,095

  25·1

  35

  69 Devon

  1,095

  23·5

  47

  70 Durham

  1,095

  18·9

  71

  71 Gloucestershire

  1,095

  28·1

  14

  72 Lancashire

  1,095

  25·0

  36

  73 Norfolk

  1,095

  23·0

  50

  74 Wakefield

  1,090

  17·8

  79

  75 Cheshire

  1,090

  27·2

  19

  76 Bradford

  1,085

  16·5

  84

  77 East Sussex

  1,085

  25·9

  28

  78 Warwickshire

  1,085

  27·8

  15

  79 Northumberland

  1,075

  29·5

  11

  80 Rotherham

  1,070

  18·3

  74

  81 Hampshire

  1,065

  26·3

  26

  82 Leeds

  1,060

  21·9

  58

  83 Hereford and Worcester

  1,060

  26·8

  23

  84 West Sussex

  1,060

  31·3

  7

  85 Kirklees

  1,055

  25·3

  33

  86 Wiltshire

  1,055

  24·3

  41

  87 Cornwall

  1,045

  26·4

  25

  88 Cambridgeshire

  1,040

  22·9

  51

  89 Somerset

  1,040

  23·2

  49

  90 Dorset

  1,030

  27·1

  21

  91 Isle of Wight

  1,030

  16·7

  83

  92 Suffolk

  1,030

  22·9

  52

  93 Lincolnshire

  1,025

  24·2

  43

  94 Kent

  1,015

  26·9

  22

  Notes:

  1 The recurrent institutional expenditure per secondary school pupil (1985–86 cash) is based on LEA returns of expenditure to DOE and of pupil numbers to DES.

  2 The examination results ranking is based on a departmental survey sample of 10 per cent. of all school leavers in each LEA (excluding special school pupils) who have attained the minimum school leaving age. The percentages quoted do not reflect pupils who achieved CSE/ GCE qualifications after leaving school, or those who achieved vocational or other qualifications either at school or elsewhere. The rankings make no allowance for differing socio-economic factors (see DES statistical bulletin 13/84).

  3 Expenditure figures are not available for Merton and Newham, which rank 46th and 93rd respectively on examination results as defined.

  204

  Public Appointments
  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will list the names of all the people appointed to public bodies by his Department who are currently in office, giving for each the office concerned and the date of appointment.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  This information could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Assessment and Testing (Report)
  Mr. Summerson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will publish the report of the task group on assessment and testing.

  Mr. Kenneth Baker
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales and I are publishing today the report of the task group on assessment and testing. Copies are being placed in the Library of the House, made available to members of the Committee on the Education Reform Bill, and are available on request from my Department. A shorter version is being prepared for distribution to schools within the next few weeks. I am very grateful to the task group's chairman, Professor Paul Black, and his fellow members for the speed and thoroughness with which they have discharged their task. Their report will make an important contribution to the development of arrangements to underpin the national curriculum in schools, provided for in the Education Reform Bill now before Parliament.

  The report recommends a national assessment system, including testing, which incorporates the main features of the Government's proposals. It provides for assessment related to clear objectives at ages 7, 11, 14 and 16 which takes account of differences in ability and maturity; for a balanced mixture of national testing and other assessment by teachers during the course of their work, and for reporting on pupils' attainments in ways which are comprehensible and helpful and which recognise the sensitivities of publishing information about the results of assessment. It lays emphasis on formative assessment of a child's positive achievements in order to help further learning as the basis of a national assessment system. It makes clear that a system along these lines could play a substantial part in the professional development of teachers, in raising standards of teaching and learning, and in improving parental and public confidence in our education system.

  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales and I welcome the broad framework proposed in the report and will be considering its detailed recommendations. We shall be happy to receive comments on those recommendations. I am asking the mathematics and science working groups, and the Kingman committee on English, to take this broad framework into account in their work on attainment targets and related assessment arrangements in their subjects. My right hon. Friend and I will be giving similar guidance, subject to refinements which may be needed in the light of comments on the recommendations, to other subject working groups which may be set up.

  I am inviting the task group to continue in being for a further period, in order to undertake more detailed study of arrangements for implementing and administering the national assessment system; to discuss, with working
  206
  groups and others, more specific criteria for assessment arrangements in different subjects; and to offer further advice as necessary in the light of the public reaction to its report.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  Public Appointments
  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will list the names of all the people appointed to public bodies by his Department who are currently in office, giving for each the office concerned and the date of appointment.

  Mrs. Chalker
  I regret that this information could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Council of Ministers
  Mr. Jacques Arnold
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will publish in the Official Report a statement of forthcoming business in the European Community Council of Ministers.

  Mrs. Chalker
  The usual forecast was deposited in the House last week. At present, only two meetings of the Council of Ministers are planned for January.

  The Agriculture Council meets on 18/19 January and is expected to discuss preparations for the European Council, beef balance sheets and quotas, and the extension of Greek national measures for table olives.

  The Foreign Affairs Council will meet on 25/26 January. Discussion will cover the Community's financial situation and progress made in negotiations with Hungary on a trade and co-operation agreement.

  Iran (Exports)
  Mr. Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he has any proposals for changes in the guidelines issued to British manufacturers to further limit exports to Iran so as to include non-lethal equipment ancillary to lethal military equipment; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Mellor
  Subject to any United Nations arms embargo resolution to enforce SCR 598, we have no plans to change the guidelines on the sale of military equipment to Iran and Iraq. These already prohibit the export of all defence-related equipment that could significantly enhance the capability of either side to prolong or exacerbate the conflict. We continue to urge other countries to adopt similar stringent measures.

  Iranian Arms Procurement Agency
  Mr. Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many members of staff formerly employed by the Iranian Arms Procurement Agency at 4 Victoria street, London, have left the United Kingdom since his Department announced that it was to be closed.

  Mr. Mellor
  Following our decision to close the Iranian Military Procurement Offices, all 34 Iranian staff previously employed there have left the United Kingdom.

SCOTLAND

  Abortions
  Mr. Steel
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many and what proportion of late abortions carried out in Scotland are to women aged under 20 years.

  Mr. Rifkind
  There is no universally accepted definition of late abortion. The number of notifications of abortions performed under the Abortion Act 1967 on women aged under 20 years resident in Scotland in 1986 carried out at 21 completed weeks gestation and over is five, which represents 20 per cent. of all abortions at this gestational age carried out in Scotland.

  Nursery Education
  Mrs. Fyfe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list, by sex, the number of children in each local education authority in Scotland who receive nursery education.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  The provisional number of children in education authority nursey schools at September 1987 is as follows:

  Authority

  Boys

  Girls

  Total

  Borders

  202

  195

  397

  Central

  1,255

  1,250

  2,505

  Dumfries/Galloway

  227

  208

  435

  Fife

  2,242

  2,037

  4,279

  Grampian

  1,445

  1,256

  2,701

  Highland

  348

  276

  624

  Lothian

  4,157

  3,860

  8,017

  Strathclyde

  9,019

  8,711

  17,730

  Tayside

  1,253

  1,149

  2,402

  Orkney

  43

  42

  85

  Shetland

  54

  56

  110

  Western Isles

  —

  —

  —

  All Scotland

  20,245

  19,040

  39,285

  1979

  1980

  1981

  1982

  1983

  1984

  1985

  1986

  A74

  Total

  215

  185

  163

  164

  169

  180

  198

  196

  Fatal

  15

  6

  13

  13

  12

  10

  14

  17

  Serious

  67

  70

  54

  70

  60

  56

  55

  64

  A75

  Total

  129

  136

  135

  110

  106

  103

  112

  120

  Fatal

  14

  13

  9

  4

  8

  7

  8

  9

  Serious

  26

  25

  37

  31

  40

  36

  37

  46

  A76

  Total

  93

  87

  88

  95

  78

  73

  78

  95

  Fatal

  6

  5

  6

  4

  9

  1

  2

  2

  Serious

  36

  30

  33

  25

  25

  18

  20

  17

  A77

  Total

  300

  299

  302

  262

  254

  288

  299

  280

  Fatal

  9

  15

  13

  14

  15

  8

  13

  14

  Serious

  80

  80

  90

  87

  76

  85

  78

  64

  M8

  Total

  182

  158

  147

  158

  146

  126

  151

  152

  Fatal

  5

  9

  5

  9

  8

  7

  4

  6

  Serious

  53

  51

  49

  51

  37

  38

  49

  31

  Public Appointments
  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list the names of all the people appointed to public bodies by his Department who are currently in office, giving for each the office concerned and the date of appointment.

  Mr. Rifkind
  I have today placed in the Library a copy of the letter I have sent to the hon. Member with the information requested.

  Traffic Statistics
  Mr. Foulkes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what are the latest traffic figures recorded for any stretches of the following roads: (i) A74, (ii) A75, (iii) A76, (iv) A77 and (v) M8.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  Traffic volumes on these roads vary at different locations. The following are illustrative annual daily averages for different stretches for 1986:

  A74 (south) 14,000–20,000

  (central) 15,000–30,000

  A75 (Dumfries-A74) 8,000–12,000

  A76 (Dumfries-New Cumnock) 3,000–5,000

  (New Cumnock-Kilmarnock) 5,000–7,000

  A77 (Girvan-Maybole) 5,000–7,000

  (Maybole-South Ayr) 5,000–10,000

  (South Ayr-A78) 10,000–20,000

  M8 (Newbridge-Newhouse) 25,000–30,000

  Road Accident Statistics
  Mr. Foulkes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what are the figures for all road accidents, those involving serious injury and those involving fatalities for (i) A74, (ii) A75, (iii) A76, (iv) A77 and (v) M8 for each year from 1979 to 1986; and what are the monthly figures up to the latest available month for 1987.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The information requested is as follows:
  209

  1987 (provisional)

  January

  February

  March

  April

  May

  June

  A74

  Total

  8

  16

  9

  9

  25

  12

  Fatal

  1

  2

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Serious

  4

  4

  3

  3

  8

  2

  A75

  Total

  5

  9

  7

  2

  7

  10

  Fatal

  1

  1

  —

  —

  —

  1

  Serious

  3

  1

  2

  1

  4

  4

  A76

  Total

  11

  3

  5

  8

  8

  7

  Fatal

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Serious

  4

  1

  1

  2

  2

  4

  A77

  Total

  14

  19

  15

  18

  14

  19

  Fatal

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  —

  Serious

  3

  7

  7

  2

  6

  7

  M8

  Total

  8

  9

  11

  11

  8

  8

  Fatal

  1

  —

  —

  2

  —

  1

  Serious

  1

  2

  4

  3

  2

  1

  Regional Aid
  Mr. Gordon Brown
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how much he has paid out in the current year in(a) regional development grant and (b) regional selective assistance; and how much he expects to pay in 1988–89, 1989–90 and 1990–91.

  Mr. Lang
  [holding answer 17 December 1987]: Gross expenditures on regional development grant (RDG) and regional selective assistance (RSA) under section 7 of the Industrial Development Act 1982 in the period April to November 1987 were £40 million and £19 million respectively. As my right hon. and learned Friend has announced, net provision for his industry, energy, trade and employment programme, which includes regional assistance, for 1988–89, 1989–90 and 1990–91 is £266 million, £260 million and £260 million respectively. Further detail will, as usual, be published in the annual "Scottish Commentary" on public expenditure. In addition full details of my right hon. and learned Friend's proposals for 1988–89 will appear in the Supply Estimates.

  Cunninghame, North (Grants)
  Mr. Wilson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will give total amounts paid in Cunninghame, North constituency by the Scottish Development Agency and the Highlands and Islands Development Board since 1979 in cash terms and also at 1987 prices.

  Mr. Lang
  [holding answer 30 October 1987]: As a result of changes in constituency boundaries the information in respect of the Scottish Development Agency is available only from 1983–84 and relates to all recognised schemes of agency financial assistance. The information is set out in the table.
  210

  Scottish Development Agency Expenditure

  Cash Terms £000

  Percentage Change

  1986–87 Prices £000

  Percentage Change

  1983–84

  475

  —

  542

  —

  1984–85

  394

  -17·1

  430

  -20·7

  1985–86

  438

  +11·2

  451

  +4·9

  1986–87

  333

  -24·0

  333

  -26·2

  Highlands and Islands Development Board Expenditure

  Cash Terms £000

  Percentage Change

  1986–87 Prices £000

  Percentage Change

  1979

  154

  —

  256

  —

  1980

  193

  +25·3

  271

  +5·9

  1981

  233

  +20·7

  298

  +10·0

  1982

  374

  +60·5

  446

  +49·7

  1983

  443

  +18·4

  505

  +13·2

  1984

  385

  -13·1

  421

  -16·6

  1985

  672

  +74·5

  692

  +64·4

  1986

  326

  -51·5

  326

  -52·9

  Note: The HIDB operates only in the Arran and Cumbrae areas of the constituency. The figures, which are only available from 1979, include approved expenditure by HIDB (net of known withdrawals) on grants, loans and shares for economic projects and social grants and board project expenditure. Board expenditure on research, surveys and publicity is riot allocated to geographical areas.

  Aberdeen (Grants)
  Mr. Robert Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will publish in the Official Report the total amount of grant to industrial projects in(a) the constituency of Aberdeen, North and (b) Aberdeen by the Scottish Development Agency or the Department of Trade and Industry for each year since 1979 in (i) cash terms and (ii) real terms in 1986–87 prices, showing the percentage changes in payments between years.

  Mr. Lang
  [holding answer 26 October 1987]: As a result of changes in constituency boundaries the information in respect of the Scottish Development Agency is available

  211
  only from 1983–84 and relates to all recognised schemes of agency financial assistance. The information is set out in the table below:

  Scottish Development Agency Expenditure

  Cash terms £ thousand

  Percentage change

  Real terms £ thousand

  Percentage change

  Aberdeen North

  1983–84

  53

  —

  60

  —

  1984–85

  261

  +392·5

  285

  +375·0

  1985–86

  59

  -77·4

  61

  -78·6

  1986–87

  64

  +8·5

  64

  +4·9

  Aberdeen City

  1983–84

  146

  —

  167

  —

  1984–85

  405

  +177·4

  442

  +164·7

  1985–86

  1,332

  +228·9

  1,372

  +210·4

  1986–87

  198

  -85·1

  198

  -85·6

  Overseas Development Administration

  1982–83

  1983–84

  1984–85

  1985–86

  1986–87

  £'000

  £'000

  £'000

  £'000

  £'000

  (i) Joint Funding Scheme

  OXFAM

  1,200

  1,200

  1,450

  1,650

  1,894

  Christian Aid

  330

  330

  700

  900

  940

  Save the Children Fund

  —

  —

  —

  675

  905

  CAFOD

  100

  100

  300

  375

  350

  Other1

  760

  885

  1,379

  1,281

  1,823

  (ii) Volunteers

  British Volunteer Programme

  4,027

  5,071

  6,045

  7,049

  7,758

  British Executive Service Overseas

  283

  284

  259

  246

  290

  (iii) Other grants to specified charities2

  British Red Cross

  15

  15

  20

  19

  12

  League of Red Cross Societies

  50

  1,070

  2,945

  1,707

  520

  International Red Cross

  1,150

  4,225

  3,295

  5,220

  5,215

  Disasters Emergency Committee

  —

  —

  1,000

  —

  —

  Christians Abroad

  5

  6

  10

  7

  9

  Royal Commonwealth Society for the Blind

  13

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Women's Corona Society

  32

  49

  29

  27

  40

  Plunkett Foundation

  6

  7

  7

  7

  8

  Co-operative Union Ltd.

  10

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Other grants for refugee relief and development projects

  167

  374

  231

  810

  592

  Diplomatic Wing

  British Atlantic Council3

  44

  45

  47

  49

  51

  British Youth Council4

  42

  44

  44

  43

  44

  United Kingdom Immigrants Advisory Service (Bangladesh)

  12

  13

  13

  14

  14

  1 Includes Save the Children Fund figures for 1982–83 to 1984–85.

  2 Excludes disaster relief and food aid channelled through charities.

  3 To assist in the promotion of and knowledge and understanding of the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation.

  4 Support for the council's international activities and to enable it to carry out a programme of activities in pursuance of the provisions of the final act (Helsinki 1975) of the Conference on Security and Co-operation in Europe.

NORTHERN IRELAND

  Public Appointments
  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will list the names of all the people appointed to public bodies by his Department who are currently in office, giving for each the office concerned and the date of appointment.

  Mr. Stanley
  This information could be provided only at disproportionate cost.
  212
  Information on expenditure by the Department of Trade and Industry is not available in the form requested.

OVERSEAS DEVELOPMENT

  Charitable Bodies
  Mr. Teddy Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will list the charitable bodies which his Department supports and provide tables showing the amounts devoted in the most recent five years for which figures are available and the general purposes for which the grants were given.

  Mr. Chris Patten
  The information is as follows:

  Standard Capital Grants Scheme
  Mr. Charles Wardle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on the future of the standard capital grants scheme.

  Mr. Viggers
  This scheme, which is unique to Northern Ireland, provides automatic grant assistance at a current rate of 12·5 per cent. on capital expenditure in qualifying manufacturing sectors of industry. It is not related to job creation criteria or conditions.
  213
  Recent reviews of the scheme, including a major survey of firms claiming standard capital grant, have shown that it contains substantial deadweight—in most cases the investment would have proceeded without Government financial assistance—and has the effect of distorting competition within Northern Ireland. These and other shortcomings have led me to conclude that the scheme no longer constitutes an effective means of stimulating economic activity in Northern Ireland, nor does it provide good value for public money.

  For these reasons the Government have decided to abolish the standard capital grant scheme and to concentrate the industrial development effort on the wide range of selective assistance available from the Industrial Development Board and the local enterprise development unit. I am convinced that available resources should be targeted much more selectively if they are to have the maximum beneficial effect in strengthening the economy. this underlines the Government's policy to encourage enterprising firms in developing quality products, seeking out new markets and improving their competitiveness.

  I shall shortly be publishing a proposal for an Order in Council to terminate the scheme in respect of expenditure incurred after 31 March 1988. Applications for such assistance will, however, continue to be accepted by the Department of Economic Development until 31 March 1990.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  British Steel Corporation (Rates)
  Mr. Andrew Welsh
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what are(a) the rateable values and (b) the rates payable for the British Steel Corporation's integrated steelworks; and on what basis they are levied.

  Mr. Atkins
  The rateable values and rates payable for the British Steel Corporation's integrated steel works are as follows:

  Integrated works

  Rateable values

  Rates payable

  £

  £

  England

  Teeside

  4,600,000

  14,091,640

  Scunthorpe

  4,078,000

  10,884,998

  Wales

  Llanwern

  3,552,120

  8,227,588

  Port Talbot

  3,292,000

  8,757,707

  Scotland

  Ravenscraig

  7,320,000

  5,892,600

  These figures relate to the 1987–88 rate year which ends on 31 March 1988. The rates are levied on the rate in the pound adopted for other non-domestic properties in the particular area of the rating authority. The works are assessed in accordance with general rating law and not under any special statutory formula.

  Acrylic Yarn
  Sir John Farr
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what has been the import in tonnes of acrylic yarn from Turkey in each of the last three years.

  Mr. Alan Clark
  United Kingdom imports of acrylic yarns from Turkey were: 1984—44·7 metric tonnes; 1985 — 611·0 metric tonnes; and 1986 (provisional)—3,227·4 metric tones.

  Military Equipment (Exports to Iran)
  Mr. Robertson
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what exports for non-lethal military equipment have been authorised for export to Iran since 1 September 1987.

  Mr. Alan Clark
  It has been the practice of successive Governments not to make public information of this kind.

  Imports
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what is the value(a) by cash and (b) by tonnage of imports for each year since 1980.

  Mr. Alan Clark
  Information on imports by tonnage and so on is not available. For information on the value of imports I refer the hon. Member to the "Annual Abstract of Statistics 1986 edition" and "Overseas Trade Statistics Annual 1985" and December 1986 editions, copies of which are available in the Library.

  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what is the value of imports of cars from(a) the EEC, (b) Japan, and (c) other world sources into the United Kingdom annually since 1980 giving (i) the cash value and (ii) number of units.

  Mr. Alan Clark
  The information is given in the following table:

  United Kingdom imports of cars 1980 to 1986

  Value £ million

  EEC

  Japan

  Rest of the world

  Year

  Value

  Number

  Value

  Number

  Value

  Number

  1980

  1,647·7

  626,785

  308·4

  187,833

  155·7

  57,893

  1981

  1,717·3

  597,638

  343·2

  164,403

  160·6

  54,568

  1982

  2,328·9

  706,544

  401·8

  173,655

  151·2

  61,850

  1983

  2,968·6

  825,669

  515·6

  186,176

  174·6

  69,697

  1984

  2,876·7

  763,618

  619·3

  198,904

  173·8

  62,074

  1985

  3,362·9

  813,456

  569·6

  191,496

  205·8

  70,635

  1986

  3,765·5

  718,780

  818·3

  214,452

  225·4

  78,436

  Notes:

  1. Cars defined as Standard International Trade Classification (Revision 2), sub-group 781.0

  2. EEC includes all Member States as at 1 January 1988 throughout.

  3. 1986 figures provisional.

  Source: Overseas Trade Statistics.

  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what is the amount by cash, for each year since 1980, annually of imports of textiles into the United Kingdom from(a) the EEC and (b) from the rest of the world.

  Mr. Alan Clark
  The information is given in the following table:

  United Kingdom imports of textiles 1980–1986

  £ million

  EEC

  Rest of World

  1980

  891·8

  651·9

  1981

  1,072·6

  689·0

  1982

  1,248·8

  678·8

  1983

  1,523·5

  796·8

  1984

  1,797·0

  908·4

  1985

  2,033·1

  998·9

  1986

  2,122·5

  1,040·1

  215
  Source: Overseas Trade Statistics.

  Notes:

  1. Textiles defined as Standard International Trade Classification (Revision 2) Division 65: Textile yarn, fabrics, made-up articles nes and related products.

  2. EEC includes all Member States as at 1 January 1988 throughout.

  3. 1986 figures provisonal.

  United Kingdom imports of aeroplanes 1980–1986

  Value: £ million

  EEC

  USA

  Rest of World

  Value

  Number

  Value

  Number

  Value

  Number

  1980

  279·3

  491

  633·4

  324

  470·8

  385

  1981

  49·0

  183

  121·9

  333

  15·8

  81

  1982

  44·5

  140

  124·1

  202

  79·2

  77

  1983

  12·8

  96

  290·5

  44

  68·1

  55

  1984

  106·3

  95

  378·1

  173

  101·4

  95

  1985

  19·2

  110

  701·6

  106

  146·8

  58

  1986

  50·7

  73

  166·9

  165

  145·3

  141

  Source: Overseas Trade Statistics.

  Notes:

  1. Aeroplanes are defined as Standard International Trade Classification (Revision 2) sub-groups 792.2, 3 and 4.

  2. The EEC includes all Member States as at 1 January 1988 throughout.

  3. 1986 figures provisional.

  Council of Industry Ministers
  Mr. Roger King
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if he will make a report on the outcome of the Council of Industry Ministers' meeting on 22 December 1987.

  Mr. Kenneth Clarke
  Following the meeting of the Council of Industry Ministers on 8 December, on which I reported to the House in my reply on 9 December, at column 163, I attended a further meeting of the Council in Brussels on 22 December. The Council determined arrangements to apply to the steel market following the end of the previous quota arrangements on 31 December 1987. The House of Commons Select Committee on European Legislation recommended these arrangements for debate, but regrettably it was not possible to arrange for parliamentary debate prior to their agreement of the 22 December Council. I shall, of course, make efforts to arrange a debate as soon as practicable.

  The Commission reported on the consultations it had undertaken with member states, at the request of the 8 December Council, concerning the reduction of excess capacity in each of the product categories Ia and Ib (hot rolled strip and cold reduced sheet), II (plate) and III (heavy sections). In respect of categories II and III the Commission judged that sufficient indications of willingness to reduce capacity had been obtained for it to seek guaranteed undertakings to reduce capacity in these categories. The Commission proposed that if such undertakings were secured by 10 June 1988, quotas for those categories should continue until the end of 1990. In respect of category I, however, the Commission considered that insufficient indications of willingness to reduce capacity had been received, and accordingly proposed the continuation of quotas in that category only until 30 June 1988.

  As at the previous Council considerable discussion took place, particularly concerning the timetable over which
  216
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what is(a) the cash value and (b) the numbers of, aeroplane imports into the United Kingdom from (i) the EEC (ii) the United States of America and, (iii) other world sources, (c) annually since 1980.

  Mr. Alan Clark
  The information is given in the following table:

  quotas for category I products should be removed. Eventually, the following conclusions relating to quotas were agreed unanimously:

  "The Council gave its assent, in accordance with Article 58 ECSC, to the Commission proposals relating to the extension of the steel regime beyond 1 January 1988, as follows:
  With regard to categories I (a) and (b), the production quota regime will come to an end on 30 June 1988.
  With regard to categories II and III, the production quota regime will continue up to 30 June 1988, and should be extended until the end of 1990 if, by 10 June 1988, the Commission has received guaranteed undertakings to reduce production capacity by means of closure by at least 75 per cent. of the surplus the Commission deems to exist. In the case of these conditions not being fulfilled for one of these categories, quotas will end for that category on 30 June 1988.
  The Commission will allocate to firms quotas for the second quarter of 1988 some 2·0 per cent. higher than would correspond to a market assessment to prepare for the return to the free market.
  The Council notes that there is agreement in the Council to accept a Commission proposal extending the quotas for category I products beyond 30 June 1988 on condition that guaranteed undertakings on reduction of capacity of at least 7·5 million tonnes by means of closure in category Ia are obtained before 10 June 1988.
  The Council notes that the Commission is ready to reconsider its present position on category I products provided the conditions of the treaty are fulfilled and the commitments set out above are obtained."

  The Commission made no proposals for the continuation of quotas on categories IV and VI (wire rod and merchant bar), so quotas on these categories lapsed on 31 December. Quotas on other categories had been removed previously. The Commission has also raised the production reference levels which determine whether individual producers are subject to quotas. The effect of these changes is that the British Steel Corporation is now the only United Kingdom steel producer subject to production quotas.

  The conclusions of the Council provide a clear framework for a steady return to free market conditions. Specific and demanding targets have been set for closure commitments to be obtained by 10 June, and the Council has concluded unanimously that quotas should end on 30 June if such commitments are not forthcoming. I believe these conclusions represent a good outcome for steel

  217
  producers and consumers in the United Kingdom, and for the preparations for the privatisation of the British Steel Corporation which I announced on 3 December.

  Major Projects
  Mr. Favell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster whether he will make a statement about support for major projects.

  Mr. Kenneth Clarke
  I presented to the House today the White Paper "DTI—the Department for Enterprise". The White Paper announced substantial changes in DTI's role and its policies and programmes. A number of major new initiatives to encourage enterprise are being launched. My statement to the House today outlined these, together with those existing schemes which we believe are less effective and are being closed. The details of the latter are as follows.

  From today, a limited number of both research and development projects and investment projects likely to yield exceptional national benefits will be eligible for support under a unified facility — assistance for exceptional projects.

  Support for major projects, under which investment projects likely to yield exceptional national benefits have been eligible for assistance, has been closed from 6 pm today (12 January) to further applications as a separate facility.

  The automatic regional development grant (RDG) scheme, which currently operates in the development areas, is to be terminated and no new applications will be accepted after 31 March 1988. Legislation is being introduced into the House today to terminate the scheme. New applications for project approval will be considered provided they are received on or before 31 March 1988. The transitional arrangements proposed in the Bill reflect the fact that RDG may be applied for before a project is started, while it is in progress or after it has been completed. Applications for project approval received on or before today, and applications received on or before 31 March in relation to projects started on or before today, will not be affected by the legislation. Applications received after today in relation to projects not yet started will be considered for grant only to the extent that relevant jobs or assets are provided (or, in the case of assets, expenditure is defrayed) within two years of the project application being approved by the Department. Grants will not be payable in relation to such projects unless a claim is received within three years of the project approval, or such shorter period as may be prescribed in an individual case. Further details of the transitional arrangements are available to companies from DTI regional offices and from the Industry Department for Scotland and the Welsh Office Industry Department.

  Requests for single company support for innovation and for projects under the microelectronics industry support programme, support for software products and the fibreoptics optoelectronics scheme will be considered against the existing criteria for these schemes provided that formal applications are received by DTI before 6 pm today (12 January).

  The major expansion of support for the use of DTI consultancy services by small and medium-sized firms incorporates many existing DTI consultancy services. Except for those business improvement services schemes
  218
  which still have allocated unused funds, all existing consultancy services will be ended from noon on 14 January 1988. These include the advanced manufacturing technology consultancy scheme, the microelectronics applications consultancy scheme and business and technical advisory services.

  Publicity
  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what is the latest figure for the number of staff presently employed in the press and public relations office of his Department; and what is the number planned to be employed at this point in 1988.

  Mr. Butcher
  [holding answer 17 December 1987]: The latest figures for the number of staff posts in the press and public relations office of my Department are:

  at present in 1987–88

  1988–89

  151

  151

  1Including 17 on clerical and other support duties.

  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what is the latest figure for the estimated spending in 1987–88 by his Department on(a) television advertising, (b) radio advertising, (c) newspaper advertising and (d) other promotional material; and what are the estimated expenditures in each area for 1988–89.

  Mr. Butcher
  [holding answer 17 December 1987]: Information is not readily available to distinguish between advertising in newspapers and in the press generally, nor for expenditure other than centrally by my Department.

  The estimated media expenditure for 1987–88 by my Department is as follows:

  £

  Television advertising

  5,342,000

  Radio advertising

  20,000

  Press advertising

  2,985,000

  Other promotional publicity

  3,869,000

  Total

  12,216,000

  Detailed decisions on expenditure by media have not yet been taken for 1988–89.

  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what is the latest figure for the estimated expenditure by his Department on press and public relations for(a) 1987–88 and (b) 1988–89.

  Mr. Butcher
  [holding answer 17 December 1987]: The latest estimated expenditure by my Department on press and public relations is as follows:

  £

  1987–88

  1,123,000

  1988–89

  1,508,000

EMPLOYMENT

  Open Tech
  Ms. Mowlam
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will make a statement on the principal achievements of the Open Tech project since its inception;
  219
  what is the current operating status of the project; and what are (a) the total costs to date, (b) the total contributions by employers, (c) the total contributions by other organisations, (d) the total contributions by local authorities and (e) the number of students and trainees enrolled per year, by region, employer, local authority, other organisation, employment status, gender, whether disabled, racial origin and by subject studied.

  Mr. Cope
  The Manpower Services Commission's Open Tech programme was a four-year developmental programme which concluded on 31 March 1987. An evaluation by the Tavistock Institute will be available shortly and its report will be placed in the Library.

  The aims of the programme were to extend the training opportunities available to adults, mainly employed, at technician, supervisory and management levels, to improve access to that training, and to provide an exemplar structure of open learning materials and services. Employers, local authorities, colleges and other training providers, trade unions, industry training boards, and others participated through 140 projects. These were required by their contracts to become self-sustaining.

  The principal achievements of the programme include the creation of about 35,000 learning hours of self-study packages and the establishment of a range of producers and suppliers of open learning materials and trainee support services. The packages continue to be available for sale on a commercial basis and almost all the projects are continuing to deliver open learning materials.

  Total costs of the programme to the MSC were some £51 million. Additional resources contributed by sponsors during the life of the programme are estimated at £8·8 million in cash and in kind. I regret that it is not possible to allocate this between types of sponsor.

  The Open Tech programme did not enrol students directly, but made open learning materials available to organisations and individuals alike. Packages purchased by employers, colleges and others will generally have been made available to several students. An accurate breakdown of the beneficiaries of Open Tech materials and the subjects they studied has not been possible therefore. The MSC's best estimate of the trainees known to have received help from the programme is as follows:

  Number

  1983–84

  6,000

  1984–85

  12,000

  1985–86

  32,000

  1986–87

  65,000

  Public Appointments
  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will list the names of all the people appointed to public bodies by his Department who are currently in office, giving for each the office concerned and the date of appointment.

  Mr. Lee
  This information could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  British Nuclear Fuels, Sellafield
  Dr. Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment (1) if he will make a statement on the report published by the Health and Safety Executive on 14 December on the implementation of safety changes at 220
  British Nuclear Fuels Ltd., Sellafield, arising from the Health and Safety Executive safety audit Sellafield, published in December 1986;

  (2) if he will make a statement on the implementation of the report of the Health and Safety Executive, published on 14 December, arising from the Health and Safety Executive safety audit on Sellafield published in December 1986; and if he will make a statement on the present state of containment of nuclear wastes at Sellafield and on levels of radiation exposure to workers at the Sellafield site.

  Mr. Michael Spicer
  I have been asked to reply.

  I welcome the HSE's recent report which acknowledges the good progress made by British Nuclear Fuels plc in meeting the requirements specified in the HSE's initial audit report. The company's plans for dealing with waste on site are well advanced and it aims to keep worker dose as low as reasonablly achievable consistent with practice throughout the nuclear industry.

TRANSPORT

  Public Appointments
  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will list the names of all the people appointed to public bodies by his Department who are currently in office, giving for each the office concerned and the date of appointment.

  Mr. Channon
  This information could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Chauffeurplan Limited
  Mr. John
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what assessment he has made of the implications for his campaigns against drinking and driving of the advertising material from Chauffeurplan Ltd. which offers to provide a chauffeur service for disqualified drivers.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  We view with distaste insurance schemes which provide alternative road transport for those disqualified from driving following conviction for road traffic offences, even though such schemes cannot adequately compensate for loss of entitlement to drive. We shall look again at such insurance schemes in the light of the report of the review of road traffic law, which we expect very shortly.

  Companies or department stores considering circulating details of such schemes, may wish to consider carefully the number of complaints which we have received about such proposals.

  London Underground (Escalators)
  Mr. Gale
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many escalators were, at the latest available date, out of service and undergoing repairs on the London underground system.

  Mr. David Mitchell
  I understand that on 4 January 1988, 37 of the Underground's 276 escalators were out of service either for repair or planned replacement, including those damaged in the King's Cross fire.

  London Couriers (Accidents)
  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will give for each year since 1979 the number of accidents in London involving bicycle and motor cycle couriers.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  I regret that the information is not available.

  Horne Committee
  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when he is planning to implement the recommendations of the Horne committee following its review of the Public Utilities and Street Works Act 1950.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  We recognise the importance of the Horne report particularly for securing better quality reinstatements. The Government's response to the report, published in July 1986, accepted the great majority of its recommendations. The Department is pressing ahead with implementation. We shall continue to look for a suitable opportunity to introduce the necessary primary legislation.

  London City Airport
  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what is the total cost to the Civil Aviation Authority associated with the operation of the London City airport.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  Air traffic approach control is provided under contract by the Civil Aviation Authority to London City airport. The cost is a commercial matter which is confidential to the airport and the authority. The costs for the provision of en route air traffic services are recovered from aircraft operators through charges. The proportion of these costs attributed to flights using a particular airport are not readily available.

  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what charges were made on, or contributed from, public funds for the planning, construction and operation of London City airport.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  London City Airport is owned and financed by the private sector. No contribution has been made from public funds to its planning, construction and operation. Some costs fell on public funds in respect of the planning inquiry and in providing services such as customs and immigration facilities. It is not possible to estimate such costs without disproportionate expenditure.

  East London River Crossing
  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what changes are being considered to the height of the east London river crossing bridge towers; and what is the reasoning behind the considered change.

  JET income from Euratom and participating countries in European currency units

  Draft budgets for

  1978

  1979

  1980

  1981

  1982

  1983

  1984

  1985

  1986

  1987

  1968

  Euratom

  9,600,000

  32,000,000

  40,712,751

  43,464,000

  80,993,900

  95,000,000

  84,505,600

  52,500,000

  68,250,200

  79,859,700

  83,201,500

  Belgium

  21,960

  72,160

  96,413

  105,910

  204,990

  274,685

  295,400

  132,800

  135,500

  139,800

  234,000

  Denmark

  8,640

  28,280

  37,537

  39,100

  70,200

  75,600

  77,000

  72,600

  93,800

  83,300

  78,730

  222
  Mr. Channon
  Representations about the design of the proposed bridge were made at the public inquiry into the east London river crossing. These will be taken into account by myself and my right hon. Friend, the Secretary of State for the Environment, in considering the inspector's report on the inquiry which has just been received.

  Advisory Committees
  Mr. Richard Shepherd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will list in the Official Report the names of his advisory committees, together with an indication of those whose members are required to sign a declaration under, or who have otherwise had drawn to their attention, the provisions of section 2 of the Official Secrets Act.

  Mr. Channon
  [pursuant to his reply, 18 December 1987, c. 776]: The list of advisory committees for which I am responsible should also have included the recently formed Street Works Advisory Committee. Its members have their attention drawn to the Official Secrets Act.

ENERGY

  British Nuclear Fuels, Sellafield
  Dr. Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy if he will make a statement on the future of Magnox reprocessing at British Nuclear Fuels Ltd., Sellafield, following the publication on 14 December by the Health and Safety Executive of the report on safety revision at Sellafield arising from the Health and Safety Executive safety audit at Sellafield, issued in December 1986.

  Mr. Michael Spicer
  Reprocessing is a proven and safe technology which keeps open the possibility for recycling valuable uranium and plutonium as fuel.

  BNF plc, of course, like any other licensed nuclear operator, must continue to meet the requirements of the independent Health and Safety Executive.

  Nuclear Fusion
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what has been the total annual expenditure on the Joint European Torus fusion project by all contributing partners since its inception up to 1987–88, broken down into contributions by individual countries.

  Mr. Michael Spicer
  The table gives full details of the annual contributions for Euratom and each member country of the JET (Joint European Torus) joint undertaking from its inception in June 1978. There are no figures yet available for the contributions from Spain and Portugal which became members of the undertaking in June 1987.
  223

  Draft budgets for

  1978

  1979

  1980

  1981

  1982

  1983

  1984

  1985

  1986

  1987

  1988

  France

  247,320

  814,520

  912,161

  1,040,400

  1,935,500

  2,168,566

  2,107,300

  1,846,325

  2,095,500

  2,297,000

  2,649,200

  Germany

  558,600

  1,839,640

  2,074,192

  2,370,700

  4,363,800

  4,570,441

  3,699,200

  2,444,175

  3,298,200

  3,963,300

  3,845,700

  Greece

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Ireland

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Italy

  95,760

  315,560

  573,881

  500,200

  844,400

  853,211

  963,800

  770,675

  872,900

  1,028,000

  1,195,600

  Luxembourg

  —

  —

  —

  4,890

  6,910

  2,300

  5,100

  4,625

  5,600

  3,900

  2,200

  Netherlands

  69,360

  228,080

  215,202

  254,800

  499,800

  702,242

  545,600

  365,550

  426,400

  438,200

  428,200

  Sweden

  23,760

  78,160

  48,728

  77,100

  134,100

  151,185

  173,600

  98,500

  119,600

  157,500

  172,000

  Switzerland

  —

  48,360

  337,468

  181,400

  311,000

  352,528

  396,400

  343,800

  407,900

  422,900

  428,700

  United Kingdom

  1,374,600

  4,575,240

  5,882,605

  6,291,500

  11,877,700

  14,599,242

  12,863,000

  7,045,950

  9,607,200

  11,431,000

  11,766,000

  Total

  12,000,000

  40,000,000

  50,890,938

  54,330,000

  101,242,300

  118,750,000

  105,632,000

  65,625,000

  85,312,800

  99,824,600

  104,001,800

  Notes:

  1. United Kingdom contribution includes 10 per cent. as host.

  2. Estimated income from Spain and Portugal is not available.

  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy (1) what is the current range of estimates assumed by his Department for(a) the likely achievement of a sustained fusion reaction and (b) the economic viability of nuclear fusion reactors;

  (2) what specific criteria his Department uses to assess the economic viability of nuclear fusion and in particular the Joint European Torus programme; and if he will name any consultants, other than those associated with the United Kingdom Atomic Energy Authority/Joint European Torus programme who have provided advice to his Department on the economic viability of nuclear fusion.

  Mr. Michael Spicer
  The JET (Joint European Torus) project at Culham is the centrepiece of European investigations into the potential of harnessing the energy released by nuclear fusion. The immediate aim of the programme is to establish the scientific feasibility of fusion power. If successful, this could lead to the demonstration of sustained, controlled fusion reactions in a follow-on NET (Next European Torus) project. The economic viability of fusion power could only be confirmed thereafter by experience with a power generating demonstration reactor. A report by the energy technology support unit (Report R-43 published in February 1987) concluded that extremely demanding materials, engineering, irradiation, fuel injection and waste treatment requirements would need to be satisfied before reaching the point, perhaps by 2050, where commercial power reactors would be a realistic proposition. The economic viability of nuclear fusion is therefore extremely uncertain.

  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy (1) what is the proposed annual budget for the research and development of nuclear fusion for the period 1987–88 to 1990–91;

  (2) what was the annual expenditure for the research and development of nuclear fusion in the years 1970–71 to 1986–87.

  Mr. Michael Spicer
  With the exception of the JET project and some minor research in universities, United Kingdom fusion research is carried out entirely by the United Kingdom Atomic Energy Authority. Its expenditure is funded partly by the Department of Energy Vote and, since 1973, partly by Euratom under a contract of association. The cost of fusion research by the United Kingdom Atomic Energy Authority is set out with the contribution from Euratom shown in brackets. United 224
  Kingdom Atomic Energy Authority expenditure funded by the Department on the Joint European Torus project (JET), is given separately in my reply today to the hon. Member for Truro.

  United Kingdom Atomic Energy Authority fusion research

  Total

  of which Euratom

  £ million

  £ million

  1970–71

  4·1

  —

  1971–72

  4·4

  —

  1972–73

  4·0

  —

  1973–74

  4·3

  (1·3)

  1974–75

  5·8

  (1·5)

  1975–76

  7·7

  (2·0)

  1976–77

  8·5

  (1·9)

  1977–78

  9·6

  (2·3)

  1978–79

  11·5

  (3·2)

  1979–80

  14·6

  (4·1)

  1980–81

  17·9

  (6·5)

  1981–82

  21·5

  (4·2)

  1982–83

  17·8

  (5·3)

  1983–84

  18·9

  (4·8)

  1984–85

  23·2

  (4·3)

  1985–86

  21·7

  (5·0)

  1986–87

  19·6

  (5·5)

  1987–88

  19·5

  1(5·2)

  1 Provisional.

  Departmental funding for the years 1988–89 and 1989–90 has yet to be agreed. Provisional figures, which include funding for JET, of £21·45 million and £21·75 million respectively, are published in the "Cabinet Office 1987 Annual Review of Government-funded R&D." Figures for 1990–91 are not available.

  Electricity Disconnections
  Mr. Michael Marshall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what information he has recently received relating to violations of the code of practice relating to disconnections by area electricity boards.

  Mr. Michael Spicer
  Monitoring of the code of practice on paying electricity bills is a matter for the Electricity Consumers' Council. I believe that generally the code is operating satisfactorily.

  Research and Development
  Mr. Darling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy if he will list the actual and projectd research and
  225
  development expenditure from public funds under the heading nuclear in each of the years from 1979–80 to 1989–90, at 1986–87 prices.

  Mr. Michael Spicer
  The following table gives the Department's expenditure with the UKAEA on nuclear R and D and related programmes (including the decommissioning of old plant and radioactive waste management) during the period 1979–80 to 1989–90. The figures in brackets represent estimated expenditure on nuclear R and D alone. Figures on the same basis for the earlier years are not available.

  £ million (1986–87 prices)

  1979–80

  242·2

  1980–81

  261·4

  1981–82

  262·7

  1982–83

  256·2

  1983–84

  232·4

  1984–85

  214·3

  1985–86

  195·3

  1986–871

  183·9 (158)

  1987–882 3

  165·3 (134)

  1988–894 5

  165·2(131)

  1989–904 5

  159·6 (130)

  1 This figure represents roughly eleven twelfths of the Department's expenditure under the programme letters for 1986–87 following the change to payment monthly in arrears from 1 April 1986. Figures for later years are based on 12 monthly payments.

  2 Estimate.

  3 "Supply Estimates 1987–88", March 1987.

  4 Projected.

  5 "The Government's Expenditure Plans 1987–88 to 1989–90", January 1987. "Cabinet Office Annual Review of Government-funded R and D 1987".

  The above figures do not include expenditure on nuclear R and D by other Government departments, the electricity supply industry and BNF plc either within the organisations themselves or with other organisations, including the AEA.

  Mr. Darling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy if he will list the actual and projected research and development expenditure from public funds on energy efficiency in each of the years 1979–80 to 1989–90, at 1986–87 prices.

  Mr. Peter Morrison
  Research and development expenditure figures for 1979–80 are not readily available, since expenditure in that year was not allocated in a comparable way with subsequent years. Figures for expenditure by my Department on energy efficiency research and development (including Demonstration) for the other years, in pounds million at 1986–87 prices, are as follows:

  £ million

  1980–81

  1·97

  1981–82

  5·24

  1982–83

  8·11

  1983–84

  7·98

  1984–85

  7·21

  1985–86

  8·55

  1986–87

  9·00

  11987–88

  11·6

  21988–89

  12·2

  21989–90

  11·7

  226

  1 Provision.

  2 Figures for 1988–89 and 1989–90 are taken from the "Government's Expenditure Plans 1987–88 to 1989–90". January 1987.

  Mr. Darling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what is the actual and projected research and development expenditure from public funds on coal technology in each of the years from 1979–80 to 1989–90, at 1986–87 prices.

  Mr. Michael Spicer
  Research and developrnenl expenditure figures for 1979–80 are not readily available, since expenditure in that year was differently categorised. Figures for expenditure by my Department on coal technology for the other years, in pounds million at 1986–87 prices, are as follows:

  £ million

  1980–81

  3·79

  1981–82

  5·88

  1982–83

  3·58

  1983–84

  3·42

  1984–85

  0·76

  1985–86

  0·62

  1986–87

  1·60

  11987–88

  1·20

  21988–89

  1·30

  21989–90

  1·40

  1 Provision

  2 Figures for 1988–89 and Plans are taken from the "Government's Expenditure Plans 1987–88 to 1989–90", January 1987.

  In addition, British Coal also has a substantial research and development programme. In 1986–87 this programme cost over £24 million.

  Mr. Darling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy if he will list the actual and projected research and development expenditure from public funds on renewable energy sources in each of the years 1979–80 to 1989–90, at 1986–87 prices.

  Mr. Michael Spicer
  Research and development expenditure figures for 1979–80 are not readily available, since expenditure in that year was differently categorised. Figures for expenditure by my Department on renewable energy sources for the other years, in pounds million at 1986–87 prices, are as follows:

  £ million

  1980–81

  15·73

  1981–82

  22·12

  1982–83

  16·94

  1983–84

  12·89

  1984–85

  15·29

  1985–86

  13·08

  1986–87

  11·60

  11987–88

  13·10

  21988–89

  12·60

  21989–90

  12·10

  1 Provision.

  2 Figures for 1988–89 and 1989–90 are taken from the "Government's Expenditure Plans 1987/88–1989/90". —[January 1987.] The provision for these years has been revised upwards and will be published in the 1988 public expenditure White Paper.

  Public Appointments
  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy if he will list the names of all the people appointed to
  227
  public bodies by his Department who are currently in office, giving for each the office concerned and the date of appointment.

  Mr. Parkinson
  The information is as follows:

  British Coal Corporation

  Sir Robert Haslam—Chairman—September 1986

  Sir Kenneth Couzens, KCB—Deputy Chairman—October 1985

  Mr. M. H. Butler—Full-time Member—April 1986

  Mr. M. J. Edwards, CBE—Full-time Member—April 1986

  Mr. K. Moses—Full-time Member—April 1986

  Mr. J. H. Northard, CBE—Full-time Member—April 1986

  Sir Melvyn Rosser—Non-Executive Member—July 1983

  Mr. C. Barker—Non-Executive Member—February 1984

  Dr. D. V. Atterton, CBE—Non-Executive Member—September 1986

  Dr. T. J. Parker—Non-Executive Member—September 1986

  United Kingdom Atomic Energy Authority

  Mr. J. G. Collier—Chairman—January 1987

  Dr. B. L. Eyre—Full-time Member—August 1987

  Dr. G. G. E. Low—Full-time Member—April 1986

  Mr. R. N. Simeone, CBE—Full-time Member—April 1987

  Mr. J Bullock—Non-Executive Member—November 1981

  Professor Sir P. Hirsch—Non-Executive Member—April 1982

  Mr. M. J. B. Parker—Non-Executive Member—April 1985

  Mr. R. E. J. Roberts, CBE—Non-Executive Member—September 1981

  Mr. R. Sanderson, OBE—Non-Executive Member—January 1987

  Electricity Council

  Sir Philip Jones, CB—Chairman—April 1983

  Mr. D. G. Jefferies—Deputy Chairman—February 1986

  Mr. R. W. Orson, CBE—Full-time Member—January 1976

  Mr. R. A. Farrance, CBE—Full-time Member—November 1979

  Dr. D. G. C. Gronow—Full-time Member—October 1985

  Central Electricity Generating Board

  Lord Marshall of Goring, Kt, CBE—Chairman—July 1982

  Mr. G. A. W. Blackman, CBE—Deputy Chairman—April 1986

  Mr. J. W. Baker—Full-time Member—September 1980

  Mr. D. A. Davis—Full-time Member—June 1984

  Mr. F. Ledger, OBE—Full-time Member—April 1986

  Mr. R. V. Giordano—Non-Executive Member—July 1982

  Mr. W. H. N. Wilkinson—Non-Executive Member—November 1986

  Sir Terence Beckett, KBE—Non-Executive Member—January 1987

  Mr. D. A. Walker—Non-Executive Member—May 1987

  London Electricity Board

  Mr. J. J. Wilson—Chairman—March 1986

  Mr. K. G. Harvey—Deputy Chairman—May 1984

  Mr. C. A. Prendergast, CBE—Non-Executive Member—August 1983

  Baroness Garner of Parkes, JP—Non-Executive Member—November 1984

  Mr. L. W. G. Priestley—Non-Executive Member—October 1983

  Mr. R. J. Home—Non-Executive Member—May 1980

  Mr. M. Young—Non-Executive Member—January 1987

  Mr. R. B. Yearsley—Non-Executive Member September 1984

  South Eastern Electricity Board

  Mr. G. A. Squair—Chairman—June 1983

  Mr. D. A. Lovesey—Deputy Chairman—April 1987

  Sir Ian G. McLeod, JP—Non-Executive Member—August 1983

  Mr. R. A. Cox, CBE—Non-Executive Member—June 1983

  Mr. A. Ferry, MBE—Non-Executive Member—April 1987

  Mr. N. J. Hawkins—Non-Executive Member—September
  228
  1980

  Dame Margaret Weston, DBE—Non-Executive Member— February 1981

  Mr. M. J. Calvert, JP—Non-Executive Member—January 1985

  South Western Electricity Board

  Mr. A. W. Nicol—Chairman—April 1987

  Mr. J. J. Seed—Deputy Chairman—June 1986

  Mr. M. E. Kelsey—Non-Executive Member—September 1983

  Mr. M. J. L. Sayers—Non-Executive Member—August 1978

  Mr. J. 0. Gough, MBE—Non-Executive Member—October 1980

  Mr. J. R. W. R. Carew-Pole—Non-Executive Member—June 1981

  Mr. P. W. Gregory—Non-Executive Member—April 1986

  Miss V. E. Arrowsmith-Brown—Non-Executive Member—May 1986

  Eastern Electricity Board

  Mr. J. C. Smith—Chairman—October 1982

  Mr. W. Waring—Deputy Chairman—July 1983

  Mr. C. T. Muddiman—Non-Executive Member—January 1980

  Dr. K. W. Humphreys—Non-Executive Member—May 1982

  Mr. I. D. Coutts, CBE—Non-Executive Member—May 1982

  Mr. R. C. G. Chesterman, OBE—Non-Executive Member—September 1984

  Professor R. J. Eden, OBE—Non-Executive Member—June 1985

  Mr. B. C. Stanley—Non-Executive Member—September 1986

  East Midlands Electricity Board

  Mr. J. F. Harris—Chairman—October 1982

  Mr. D. W. Cowe—Deputy Chairman—November 1985

  Mrs. A. Noskwith—Non-Executive Member—July 1983

  Mrs. D. J. Parker—Non-Executive Member—July 1983

  Mr. W. B. Morgan—Non-Executive Member—July 1983

  Mr. G. H. Boyle—Non-Executive Member—June 1981

  Mr. G. N. Corah—Non-Executive Member—March 1984

  Mr. A. G. Schroeder—Non-Executive Member—March 1986

  Midlands Electricity Board

  Mr. B. S. Townsend—Chairman—April 1986

  Mr. R. K. Young—Deputy Chairman—July 1987

  Mr. P. B. G. Williams—Non-Executive Member—January 1984

  Dr. Barbara E. Marsh—Non-Executive Member—January 1984

  Mr. D. F. Harper—Non-Executive Member—June 1980

  Mr. F. C. Graves, OBE—Non-Executive Member—October 1980

  Dr. M. D. Skillicorn —Non-Executive Member—March 1981

  South Wales Electricity Board

  Mr. J. W. Evans—Chairman—April 1984

  Mr. W. Kerss—Deputy Chairman—August 1983

  Mr. C. J. Beynon—Non-Executive Member—September 1983

  Mr. E. Rea, OBE—Non-Executive Member—January 1978

  Dr. B. K. Davison, OBE—Non-Executive Member—July 1980

  Mr. J. Foley, MBE—Non-Executive Member—January 1984

  Mr. P. J. Phillips, OBE—Non-Executive Member—June 1984

  Mr. T. C. A. Horn—Non-Executive Member—April 1985

  Mrs. V. Pollard—Non-Executive Member—January 1988

  Merseyside and North Wales Electricity Board

  Mr. B. H. Weston—Chairman—September 1985

  Mr. R. T. Gales—Deputy Chairman—March 1978

  Mr. D. L. Boult—Non-Executive Member—August 1983

  Mr. R. B. de Zouche, OBE—Non-Executive Member—

  229

  April 1984

  Dr. R. H. Cummings, OBE—Non-Executive Member—January 1980

  Mr. J. M. Griffiths, OBE, JP—Non-Executive Member—January 1981

  Mrs. S. M. N. Garston—Non-Executive Member—March 1981

  Mr. J. A. Hooson—Non-Executive Member—August 1984

  Southern Electricity Board

  Mr. D. A. Ross—Chairman—April 1984

  Mr. H. R. Casley—Deputy Chairman—October 1986

  Mr. R. W. Gurney—Non-Executive Member—November 1978

  Mr. M. H. Vogel—Non-Executive Member—July 1980

  Mr. A. G. Stoughton-Harris—Non-Executive Member—February 1981

  Mr. R. J. Cowley—Non-Executive Member— December 1986

  Mr. R. D. Margesson, JP—Non-Executive Member—May 1986

  Mr. N. G. L. Timpson—Non-Executive Member—January 1987

  Yorkshire Electricity Board

  Mr. J. Porteous—Chairman—November 1984

  Mr. J. S. Tysoe—Deputy Chairman—September 1985

  Mrs. M. E. L. Wood — Non-Executive Member —September 1983

  Mr. J. M. T. Ross—Non-Executive Member—May 1983

  Mr. D. B. Clark, CBE — Non-Executive Member —November 1980

  Mr. P. A. Smith—Non-Executive Member—June 1981

  Mr. J. P. M. Denny — Non-Executive Member— March 1984

  North Eastern Electricity Board

  Mr. T. Rutherford, CBE—Chairman—May 1977

  Mr. J. A. Harmsworth—Deputy Chairman—January 1978

  Mr. M. Dumbrell — Non-Executive Member — September 1983

  Mrs. A. Matthews — Non-Executive Member — October 1980

  Mr. J. R. Holdsworth — Non-Executive Member — April 1981

  Mr. R. C. Spoor, RD — Non-Executive Member—April 1981

  Professor J. L. J. Machin—Non-Executive Member—June 1984

  Mr. P. D. Nicholson—Non-Executive Member—December 1985

  North Western Electricity Board

  Mr. B. R. Hastings—Chairman—September 1985

  Mr. A. Crowder—Deputy Chairman—January 1983

  Mr. J. C. Seddon—Non-Executive Member—August 1983

  Mr. J. Brown, MBE, JP — Non-Executive Member — February 1984

  Mr. J. V. Parsons—Non-Executive Member—January 1984

  Mr. N. D. Root—Non-Executive Member—April 1984

  Professor G. W. Ashworth, CBE — Non-Executive Member—November 1985

  Oil and Pipelines Agency

  Mr. G. W. Dunkerley—Chairman (part-time)—December 1985

  Mr. K. J. Vaughan—Chief Executive—December 1985

  Mr. C. G. Finch — Non-Executive Member — December 1985

  Mr. O. H. Heald — Non-Executive Member — December 1985

  British Nuclear Fuels plc2

  Mr. C. G. F. Harding—Chairman (part-time)—April 1986

  Mr. L. N. Chamberlain—Chief Executive—April 1986

  Dr. W. L. Wilkinson, CBE—Deputy Chief Executive — March 1981

  Mr. A. Johnson—Full-time Member—September 1979

  Mr. H. E. Bolter—Full-time Member—June 1984

  Mr. J. M. Ilayles—Full-time Member—September 1981

  230

  Mr. R. L. Pilling—Full-time Member—March 1981

  Dr. T. N. Marsham, CBE — Non-Executive Member — September 1979

  Mr. J. R. Wills, OBE — Non-Executive Member — September 1984

  Mr. R. M. Dantzic—Non-Executive Member—April 1987

  Mrs. J. Denton—Non-Executive Member—May 1987

  Dr. N. S. Wooding, CBE — Non-Executive Member — September 1987

  Advisory Council on Research and Development for Fuel and Power (ACORD)3

  Mr. M. A. W. Baker4—Member—January 1988

  Professor J. I. G. Cadogan—Member—February 1987

  Mr. G. Clerehugh4—Member—April 1983

  Mr. D. A. Davis5—Member—July 1986

  Dr. B. L. Eyre—Member—September 1987

  Dr. A. Fish4—Member—July 1986

  Dr. C. Gronow4—Member—October 1985

  Mr. J. Houlder—Member—October 1987

  Dr. D. Lindley—Member—November 1986

  Prof. S. C. Littlechild—Member—October 1987

  Mr. R. J. Margetts—Member—October 1987

  Prof. L. Maunder, OBE—Member—May 1981

  Prof. E. W. J. Mitchell, CBE4—Member—October 1985

  Mr. K. Moses4—Member—May 1986

  Dr. H. Rose, CBE—Member—March 1975

  Prof. J. Swithenbank—Member—October 1987

  Dr. R. D. Tyler—Member—October 1987

  Dr. W. L. Wilkinson4—Member—October 1985

  Offshore Energy Technology Board (OETB)3

  Mr. G. C. Band—Member—March 1985

  Mr. W. E. Bell—Member—March 1985

  Mr. K. A. Bray OBE—Member—September 1986

  Mr. C. J. Burnett Jnr.—Member—September 1986

  Mr. B. Butler—Member—February 1985

  Mr. R. H. Campbell—Member—February 1985

  Mr. P. Everett—Member—December 1986

  Mr. A. Gormly —Member—February 1985

  Mr. J. M. Houlder, CBE—Member—March 1985

  Dr. H. W. D. Hughes—Member—March 1985

  Mr. R. Kingdon—Member—July 1987

  Mr. D. Morris—Member—July 1987

  Professor T. Patten, CBE—Member—March 1985

  Mr. K. H. Taylor—Member—September 1986

  Mr. D. B. Walker—Member—March 1985

  Mr. I. C. Wood, CBE—Member—February 1985

  Offshore Safety and Technology Board (OSTB)3

  Mr. D. Lennard—Member—January 1988

  Mr. S. Clinton—Member—September 1985

  Mr. P. S. Godfrey—Member—September 1985

  Professor P. Holmes—Member—September 1985

  Mr. D. C. Hurden—Member—September 1985

  Mr. P. D. Irwin—Member—September 1985

  Dr. C. Jones—Member—September 1985

  Mr. N. A. Rendall—Member—September 1985

  Mr. A. G. Senior—Member—September 1985

  Mr. N. A. Townsend—Member—September 1985

  Mr. W. J. Winkworth—Member—September 1985

  Renewable Energy Advisory Committee (REAC)3

  Mr. G. Leach—Member—January 1985

  Mr. A. Pearson—Member—January 1985

  Dr. P. Surman—Member—December 1986

  Mr. A. Tweedale—Member—January 1985

  Dr. T. G. Walker—Member—January 1985

  Mr. S. Woolley—Member—August 1987

  Dr. J. K. Dawson—Member—January 1985

  1 The chairmen of the Electricity Consultative Councils, who are appointed by the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry after consulting my Department, are also ex-officio members of the area electricity boards.

  2 I approve these appointments which are made by BNF plc.
  231
  3 The Minister of State chairs OETB. The chairmen of ACORD, OSTB and REAC are members of my Department: these and other Civil Service participants are not included in the above lists.

  4 These members of ACORD sit as representatives of their respective organisations and not in their personal capacities.

  Note: In addition to the bodies shown above I invite some 18 organisations, covering a wide variety of oil industry interests, to participate in meetings of the Offshore Industry Liaison Committee.

NATIONAL FINANCE

  Trusts
  Mr. Neil Hamilton
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will estimate the first year and full year cost of abolishing the additional rate of income tax on trusts.

  Mr. Norman Lamont
  The direct revenue cost of abolishing the additional rate of income tax on trusts is estimated to be about £10 million in the first year and about £50 million in a full year at forecast 1988–89 levels of income. These estimates do not allow for any possible behavioural effects nor any consequential change in the liability of beneficiaries to tax on distributed income.

  National Insurance
  Mr. Neil Hamilton
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will estimate the additional yield of class 1 national insurance contributions in 1988–89 if the upper earnings limit on employees' contributions were(a) abolished or (b) increased to the earnings level at which a single-earner married couple would start to pay income tax at 40 per cent. on the assumptions that the couple had the average amount of investment income, taxable benefits in kind and mortgage interest relief for a single-earner couple at that income level and that there was statutory indexation of the 40 per cent. tax threshold in the 1988 Budget.

  Mr. Norman Lamont
  The direct revenue yield in a full year at 1988–89 levels of income of(a) abolishing the upper earnings limit on employees' national insurance contributions and (b) increasing the upper earnings limit to £410 per week is estimated to be about £1,400 million and £500 million respectively. The estimates otherwise assume the national insurance rate structure for 1988–89 set out in chapter 3 of the 1987 Autumn Statement and indexation of the current income tax bands and allowances to 1988–89 levels as in table 4£1 of the Autumn Statement. They make no allowance for possible changes in taxpayers' behaviour.

  Earnings
  Mr. Watts
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what has been the growth of real take-home pay for a married man on male average earnings since 1978–79.

  Mr. Norman Lamont
  I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply which I gave the hon. Member for Surrey, South-West (Mrs. Bottomley), on 18 December 1987, at column 843.

  Private Health Insurance
  Mr. Butler
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make it his policy to make all contributions to private health insurance allowable against income tax.

  Mr. Norman Lamont
  I have no plans to do so.

  Public Appointments
  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will list the names of all the people appointed to public bodies by his Department who are currently in office, giving for each the office concerned and the date of appointment.

  Mr. Brooke
  This information could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Trade Balance
  Sir Brandon Rhys Williams
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) if he will publish estimates of the effect on the trade balance of(a) a reduction in the standard rate of income tax to 25 per cent. and (b) an uprating of child benefit requiring the same increase in purchasing power;

  (2) if he will publish an estimate of the effect on the trade balance in a full year of the reduction in the standard rate of income tax to 27 per cent. in 1987–88.

  Mr. Major
  It has not been the practice to publish estimates of the economic effects of changes in tax or benefit rates.

  EC (Budgetary Regime)
  Sir Michael Shaw
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will outline the arrangements which will apply in respect of the European Community revenue and expenditure under the provisional twelfths budgetary regime.

  Mr. Brooke
  In the absence of an agreed budget for 1988, the Community has, since 1 January, been operating under a provisional twelfths budgetary regime in accordance with article 204 of the treaty.

  This means that expenditure in each month is limited to one-twelfth of the total appropriations available, chapter by chapter, in the previous year's budget, or the Council's draft budget, or, in the absence of a draft budget—as is currently the case—the preliminary draft budget, whichever is lower. The Council may, acting by qualified majority, authorise expenditure of additional funds, provided that the 12-month totals are not exceeded.

  As regards revenue, traditional own resources — agricultural levies and customs duties—are paid to the Community in the normal way. But member states' VAT contributions are limited to the amounts paid under the previous year's budget. In accordance with this, the United Kingdom's monthly VAT payment, after abatement, is 259 million ecu. The corresponding sterling figure for this month's payment, made on 4 January was £179·05 million.

  Withheld Tax (Conscientious Objection)
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer with whom during the last 18 months the Inland Revenue has discussed the issue of individuals and groups who withhold or divert tax on the grounds of conscientious objection to paying for military expenditure through their taxes; and if he will make a statement.
  233
  Mr. Norman Lamont
  [holding answer 11 January 1988]: There has been correspondence between the Inland Revenue and such individuals and groups.

  No part of any individual's taxes can be said to fund a particular item of public expenditure. Thus, the general obligation to pay taxes should not involve an issue of conscience for the individual taxpayer. In any event, parliamentary sovereignty would be undermined if individuals were able to choose whether or not to accept Parliament's decision on the overall public expenditure programme.

  Subsidised Meals
  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is the estimated amount of money lost to the Exchequer each year by tax allowances available to the private and public sectors subsidising meals at staff canteens and restaurants; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Norman Lamont
  [holding answer 11 January 1988]: Costs incurred by employers in running staff canteens and restaurants are allowable in the usual way in computing business profits. Information on which to base an estimate of the effect of this on tax revenue is not available.

  Value Added Tax
  Ms. Richardson
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether the supply of water, the provision of ancillary equipment such as valve gear and meters, and the maintenance and repair of equipment, machinery and mains will continue to be zero-rated for value added tax purposes.

  Mr. Lilley
  [holding answer 11 January 1988]: The zero rating by the United Kingdom of water supplied to industry has been challenged by the Commission of the European Communities before the European Court of Justice. Until the court's judgment is delivered the consequences cannot be assessed.

  The provision on their own of the other items referred to, and the repair of equipment, machinery and mains is currently subject to tax at the standard rate.

  Mr. Gordon Brown
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what was the average value added tax paid per household on all goods and services in 1979 and in 1986–87, at(a) current prices, (b) 1979 prices and (c) 1987 prices.

  Mr. Lilley
  [holding answer 18 December 1987]: The latest year for which information is available is 1985.

  Average value added tax paid per household (£ per year)

  1979

  1985

  £

  £

  (a) Current prices

  304

  651

  (b) 1979 prices

  304

  390

  (c) 1987 prices1

  547

  701

  1 June.

  Mr. Gordon Brown
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what would be the impact on the retail prices index of imposing value added tax at 15 per cent. on(a) rail and bus fares and (b) all travel fares including air, bus, coach and rail.
  234
  Mr. Lilley
  [holding answer 18 December 1987]: The impact effect on the retail prices index of imposing value added tax at 15 per cent. on rail and bus fares would be to increase the index by 0·2 per cent. Imposing value added tax at 15 per cent. on all travel fares including air, bus coach and rail would also raise the index by 0·2 per cent.

  714 Tax Exemption Certificates
  Mr. Rooker
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what consideration he has given to the difficulties encountered by participants in the enterprise allowance scheme in obtaining 714 tax exemption certificates; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Norman Lamont
  [holding answer 11 January 1988]: The subcontractors scheme was designed to tackle widespread tax evasion in the industry. Its rules have been relaxed over the years to make it easier for those with a history of unemployment to obtain a certificate. Participants in the enterprise allowance scheme who do not meet the criteria for a full certificate may be eligible for a limited certificate, or many work under deduction.

  11 Downing Street (Rates)
  Mr. Rooker
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if domestic rates are payable in respect of any part of 11 Downing street.

  Mr. Major
  [holding answer 11 January 1988]: I refer the hon. Member to the answer given by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister on Monday 11 January 1988 at column 1.

  Uncertified Subcontractors
  Mr. Rooker
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what was the amount of payments to uncertified subcontractors before deducations on account of tax in the lastest year for which figures are available.

  Mr. Norman Lamont
  [holding answer 11 January 1988]: No record is kept of the total payments by contractors to uncertificated subcontractors in respect of which deductions have to be made, but it is estimated that it amounted to about £1,350 million in the year ended 31 March 1987.

  BP Shares
  Mr. Chris Smith
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what information he has as to the total number of partly paid BP shares sold back to the Bank of England; and what the cost of the purchase has been to the bank.

  Mr. Darling
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will indicate the number of British Petroleum shares purchased by the Bank of England as at 6 January 1988 under the special arrangements; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Norman Lamont
  [holding answer 11 January 1988]: Approximately 39 million shares, at a cost of about £27 million.

  Mortgage Interest Tax Relief
  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is the estimated full-year revenue effect of applying
  235
  mortgage interest tax relief to the residence rather than the individual; and what is the estimated effect on the mortgage interest tax relief ceiling if the change is revenue-neutral.

  Mr. Norman Lamont
  [holding answer 17 December 1987]: The direct revenue yield, in 1987–88, of a restriction in mortgage interest relief to a loan of up to £30,000 per residence is estimated to be about £25 million. If this were combined with an increase of £1,000 in the ceiling for mortgage interest relief, the change would be approximately revenue-neutral. These estimates make no allowance for any consequential changes to the distribution of outstanding mortgages.

  1987–88

  1988–89

  Replacement of married man's allowance with:

  Cost1 £ billion

  Level of allowance £ per annum

  Cost1 £ billion

  Level of allowance £ per annum

  Fully transferable personal allowance

  6·0

  3,110

  6·5

  3,240

  Half-transferable personal allowance

  3·5

  3,110

  4·0

  3,240

  1 Full year cost measured on a no-loser basis.

SOCIAL SERVICES

  Nurses
  Mr. Ray Powell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services if he has any plans to review the current level of nurse staffing; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Nigel Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services if he has any plans to review the current level of nurse staffing; and if he will make a statement.

  Ms. Short
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services if he has any plans to review the current level of nurse staffing; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Moore
  Health authority plans for levels of nurse staffing are constantly under review. Nationally the number of nursing and midwifery staff continues to increase. Action is being taken centrally where appropriate to improve the recruitment and retention of such staff.

  Mr. Andrew MacKay
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services if he will make a statement on the current and planned levels of nurses' pay.

  Mr. Newton
  The pay of nurses, midwives and health visitors is determined in the light of recommendations of the independent Review Body for Nursing Staff, Midwives and Health Visitors. The review body is currently taking evidence from the Health Departments, trades unions and professional associations with a view to reporting to the Prime Minister in the spring of this year.

  The Government have implemented all four reports of the independent review body since it was established in 1984. As a result, nurses' pay has risen by some 16 per cent. in real terms during this period and by nearly 30 per cent in real terms since 1979.

  Mr. Evennett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services what recent representations he has received concerning nursing staff levels in the South East Thames health region.

  Mrs. Currie
  Concerns about the effects of nursing sraff shortages, particularly in specialist areas and in inner

  Personal Allowances
  Mr. Gordon Brown
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is the estimated full year cost in 1987–88 and in 1988–89 of replacing the married man's tax allowance on a no-loser basis with(a) a fully transferable personal allowance and (b) a half-transferable allowance, specifying in each case the level of the allowances.

  Mr. Norman Lamont
  [holding answer 17 December 1987]: The information given in the table is based on projections from the 1984–85 survey of personal income and is therefore provisional.

  London, are reflected in letters received from hon. Members and members of the public. In September the chief executive of the NHS Management Board met representatives of the three inner London health districts in South-East Thames region to discuss a report they had produced on recruitment and retention of nursing staff. In December, at the ministerial review of South-East Thames region, the availability of nursing and midwifery staff to enable services to be sustained and developed, and the region's proposals to maintain recruitment and improve retention, were key issues during the discussion.

  Severe Weather Payments
  Mr. Battle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services if he proposes to review the scheme for severe weather payments when sufficient experience of its operation during the current winter is available; and if he will make a statement.

  Mrs. Beckett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services if he will make it his policy to review the operation of the scheme for severe weather payments in the light of the current winter's experience; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services if he intends to review the operation of the scheme for severe weather payments in the light of experience of its operation during the winter; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Kennedy
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services if he will make a statement on the operation so far during the current winter of the system of cold weather payments.

  Mr. Portillo
  The Social Security Bill contains a provision for help to continue to be given towards the cost of heating in cold weather from next winter. The precise details of the new arrangemens will be decided in the light of experience this winter.

  Care in the Community
  Mr. Colin Shepherd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services what representations he has received about his policy on care in the community.

  Mr. Newton
  We continue to receive a considerable number of representations from time to time. Those received recently include one from the Herefordshire Society for the Mentally Handicapped. My hon. Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State has written to my hon. Friend today.

  Residential Homes
  Mr. McLeish
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services what is the policy of his Department on the carrying out by police, at the request of local authority social services departments, of checks on owners and managers seeking the registration of residential homes, in the light of the vulnerability of residents of such homes.

  Mrs. Currie
  We share the hon. Gentleman's concern at possibly unsuitable persons running homes. Arrangements to enable local authorities to obtain information from police about any criminal record of people they propose to employ are being assessed by the Home Office, and we understand consultations are in progress about the possibility of extending the existing arrangements.

  Mr. Waller
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services when the results of the study of local authorities' costs on registering and inspecting private residential homes will be announced; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Newton
  It is important that the local authorities' duties of monitoring and inspecting private and voluntary residential care homes are properly carried out to ensure that these homes have acceptable standards. When the new arrangements for registering and inspecting residential care homes were introduced in 1985, we made it clear that the fees should cover local authorities' costs on this work. A report by the Department's social services inspectorate and the Welsh Office's social work service shows that fees are not doing this.

  The report of the study has been issued today with a covering letter to interested bodies inviting views on proposals for increases in the level of fees for 1988–89 and on certain other proposed changes in the regulations. The study found that significant increases would be required to enable local authorities to meet the full cost of an adequate registration and inspection service from fees, as intended. It suggests various options for achieving this.

  The Government's preference is for an increase in the initial registration fee from £550 to £1,000 to cover full costs to the authority, including the cost of dealing with the numerous inquiries which do not result in an application for registration and accompanying fee, and an increase in the annual inspection fee from £15 to £26 per place to meet the cost of adequate inspection arrangements. It is also proposed that the registration fee for a change of owner should in all cases be £500 and the registration fee for a manager should increase from £100 to £150. It is intended that any fee increases decided following consultation should be introduced from 1 April 1988.

  Consultation is also taking place on other amendments to the regulations including an increase in the minimum
  238
  number of times a home must be inspected from once to twice every 12 months and that at least one inspection a year is to be without notice. It is proposed to ban corporal punishment for children and young people in these homes, in line with the Government's commitment to prohibit the use of that form of punishment in residential establishments where children and young people are accommodated. In this context we propose also to consult shortly on draft "Children's Homes (Control and Discipline) Regulations."

  Resource Allocation Working Party Formula
  Mr. Michael McNair-Wilson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services whether he has any plans to revise the resource allocation working party formula.

  Mr. Newton
  The National Health Service Management Board has been undertaking a review of the resource allocation working party formula to explore the scope for improving the way in which the formula measures relative need for health care across the country. The review's programme of analysis and research is now almost complete, and any recommendations which may emerge will then be carefully considered.

  Hospital Closures
  Mrs. Mahon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services what is his latest estimate of the number of beds in National Health Service hospitals closed on a permanent or temporary basis since January 1987.

  Mrs. Currie
  Figures for 1987 are not yet available. Information on urgent temporary closures is not collected centrally.

  Mr. Clay
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services what is his estimate of the number of beds in National Health Service hospitals closed on a permanent or temporary basis since January 1987.

  Mrs. Currie
  I regret that information on temporary bed closures is not collected centrally.

  Figures for permanent bed closures in 1987 are not yet available.

  Invalid Care Allowance
  Ms. Quin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services if there has been any increase in the numbers of his Department's staff involved in processing applications for invalid care allowance as a result of the European Court judgment against the United Kingdom which extended the eligibility of invalid care allowance to married women; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Scott
  The number of staff processing invalid care allowance claims was increased when the allowance was extended to married women.

  In mid-1986, 34 staff were employed in the invalid care allowance unit but during the second half of that year numbers were built up rapidly so that throughout 1987 400 staff or more were in post. The new permanent complement for the unit is 304 posts.

  Ms. Armstrong
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services what support he proposes will be available for those caring for sick dependants at home following the passage of the Social Security Bill.
  239
  Mr. Scott
  The existing provisions for carers within the social security system are not affected by passage of the current Bill. Invalid care allowance, supplementary benefit (income support from April 1988), and home responsibilities protection will continue to be available as at present to those who satisfy the qualifying rules.

  Nurses and Midwives
  Mr. Key
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services how many nurses and midwives were working in Wessex(a) in May 1979 and (b) at the latest date for which figures are available.

  Mr. Butterfill
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services how many nurses and midwives were working in Wessex(a) in 1979 and (b) at the latest date for which figures are available.

  Mr. Newton
  The number of nurses and midwives working in Wessex was 19,660 at 30 September 1979, and 23,060 at 30 September 1986.

  Leicestershire
  Mr. Latham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services when he next plans to pay an official visit to Leicestershire to examine National Health Service hospital provision there.

  Mrs. Currie
  We have no plans to do so in the near future.

  Royal Victoria Infirmary, Newcastle
  Mr. Ronnie Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services how many doctors in the children's cancer unit at the Royal Victoria infirmary, Newcastle, are paid from funds provided by charities.

  Mrs. Currie
  I understand that medical charities provide funding for three of the junior doctors who work in this unit. Such co-operation between certain charities and the National Health Service works to their mutual benefit, as the NHS provides opportunities for research which, in turn, brings benefits to patients.

  "Child Care and Family Services"
  Mrs. Golding
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services when he expects to be in a position to announce a decision on legislation to give effect to the proposals in the White Paper on "Child Care and Family Services."

  Ms. Primarolo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services when he expects to be in a position to announce a decision as to whether he intends to introduce legislation on the proposals in the White Paper on "Child Care and Family Services."

  Mr. Newton
  I refer the hon. Members to my reply to my hon. Friend, the Member for Surrey, South-West (Mrs. Bottomley) on 28 October at columns 307–8. I said then that we would review the proposals in the White Paper in the light of recommendations in Mrs. Justice Butler-Sloss's report of the Cleveland inquiry when this is received. Subject to that, we intend to introduce a Bill as soon as parliamentary time is available.

  Income-related Benefits
  Mr. Jessel
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services in what respects he expects the new system of income-related benefits to differ from the present system.

  Mr. Scott
  The main changes are the replacement of supplementary benefit and family income supplement with income support and family credit and the restructuring of housing benefit. The new system will be simpler, will improve work incentives and will enable help to be better focused on those in greatest need.

  Privatisation
  Mr. David Davis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services what proportion of laundry, domestic and catering services in the northern region has been subject to competitive tendering.

  Mr. Porter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services what proportion of laundry, domestic and catering services in the East Anglian region has been subject to competitive tendering.

  Mr. David Nicholson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services what proportion of laundry, domestic and catering services in the South Western region has been subject to competitive tendering.

  Mr. Arbuthnot
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services what proportion of laundry, domestic and catering services in North East Thames region has been subject to competitive tendering.

  Mr. Batiste
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services what proportion of laundry, domestic and catering services in the Yorkshire region has been subject to competitive tendering.

  Mr. Ian Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services what proportion of laundry, domestic and catering services in the South West Thames region has been subject to competitive tendering.

  Mr. Rost
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services what proportion of laundry, domestic and catering services in the Trent region has been subject to competitive tendering.

  Sir Trevor Skeet
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services what proportion of laundry, domestic and catering services in the North West Thames region has been subject to competitive tendering.

  Mr. Simon Coombs
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services what proportion of laundry, domestic and catering services in the Wessex region has been subject to competitive tendering.

  Mr. Pawsey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services what proportion of laundry, domestic and catering services in the West Midlands region has been subject to competitive tendering.

  Mr. Newton
  The most recent information held centrally is for the quarter ended 30 September 1987. Services put out to tender, as a percentage of cost, are given in the table.

  Region

  Laundry

  Domestic

  Catering

  Total

  Northern

  100

  100

  87

  94

  Yorkshire

  81

  86

  69

  78

  241

  Region

  Laundry

  Domestic

  Catering

  Total

  Trent

  63

  99

  83

  90

  East Anglian

  100

  100

  75

  89

  North West Thames

  91

  93

  63

  81

  North East Thames

  91

  78

  37

  63

  South West Thames

  93

  93

  70

  84

  Wessex

  100

  100

  100

  100

  South Western

  100

  94

  62

  80

  West Midlands

  90

  98

  87

  92

  Rating Reform
  Mr. Wilson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services what is the amount of provision for community charge that it is intended to include in income support payments.

  Mr. Darling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services what steps he will take to ensure that claimants in receipt of income support and family credit will have access to funds to make their liability to pay a community charge when it becomes eligible.

  Mr. Scott
  I refer the hon. Members to my reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Cheadle (Mr. Day) and the hon. Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham) on 16 December at columns 599–601.

  North-West Region
  Mr. Lewis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services when he last met the chairman of the North Western regional health authority to discuss present and future funding of health services in the north-west.

  Mr. Moore
  This subject arose as part of general discussions with Sir John Page during my visit to the regional health authority headquarters on 30 October 1987.

  Handicapped Children
  Mr. Thurnham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services what recent representations he has received about provisions for caring for handicapped children; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Scott
  Representations have been received recently on a range of subjects relating to the care of handicapped children of which the major issues raised concern the provision of conductive education and implementation of sections 5 and 6 of the Disabled Persons (Services, Consultation and Representation) Act 1986.

  Our position on conductive education was set out in the reply to the right hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South (Mr. Ashley) on 24 November 1987 at columns 180–81 and I announced that implementation of sections 5 and 6 of the 1986 Act would take effect on 1 February 1988 in my reply to the hon. Member for Monklands, West (Mr. Clarke) on 4 November 1987 at column 783.

  Pensioners (Incomes)
  Mr. John Marshall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services how many of those persons retiring now have a second or third income.

  Mr. Scott
  The latest figures available are for 1985. At that time, over 85 per cent. of recently-retired pensioner 242
  households had income from sources other than state benefits—such as occupational pensions, investments or earnings.

  Mr. Rowe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services what increase there has been in average pensioner incomes since 1979.

  Mr. Scott
  The average net income of a pensioner income unit (a single person over pension age or a couple where the husband is 65 or more) rose by 18 per cent., or 2·7 per cent. per year, in real terms between 1979 and 1985, twice as fast as that of the population as a whole.

  (Source: Family Expenditure Survey.)

  Maternity Allowances
  Mr. Holt
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services what plans he has to amend current regulations in respect of maternity allowances.

  Mr. Portillo
  We have no immediate plans to amend these regulations.

  Electricity, Gas and Water (Disconnections)
  Mr. Cryer
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services what steps he takes to ensure that(a) electricity, (b) gas and (c) water are not cut off from people in receipt of supplementary benefit.

  Mr. Scott
  People on supplementary benefit who are threatened with disconnection of mains gas or electricity may have their fuel paid directly if the adjudication officer considers it is in the interests of the family to do so. The scheme is the product of an agreement (known as the joint statement of intent on direct payment for fuel) between the DHSS and the fuel industry. Provided that the supplier agrees, deductions are made from the claimant's supplementary benefit and paid directly to the supplier to cover both current consumption and to reduce the debt.

  Similar direct payment arrangements may be made for water rates to prevent disconnection of mains water. In addition, the fuel industries' code of practice provides that the supply of gas and electricity to pensioner households should not be disconnected between 1 October and 31 March.

  Family Credit Scheme
  Mr. Summerson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services how many more low-income families he expects to benefit when the new family credit scheme is introduced.

  Mr. Scott
  It is estimated that about 270,000 more families will receive family credit than would have received family income supplement had that scheme continued.

  Mr. William Powell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services how much more will be spent on the new family credit scheme than is currently spent on family income supplement and associated benefits.

  Mr. Scott
  On the basis of a case load estimate of 470,000, spending on family credit from April 1988 will be over £200 million more than is currently being spent on family income supplement and free school meals and free welfare foods for family income supplement families.

  Community Care (Physical Abuse)
  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services what representations he has received concerning the physical abuse of persons in community care over the last four weeks.

  Mrs. Currie
  None that we are aware of. If the hon. Member has a particular representation in mind, I should welcome his assistance.

  Hospital Building
  Mr. Maples
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services how many major hospital building schemes have been started and completed since 1979.

  Mrs. Currie
  Information held centrally shows that in England some 250 hospital building schemes, each costing over £1 million, have been started and completed since 1979.

  Health Authorities (Income Generation)
  Mr. Cash
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services what estimates his Department has prepared of the amounts which health authorities could raise over the next few years as a result of income generation schemes.

  Mr. Newton
  Until health authorities have fully evaluated the possibilities for generating income and have drawn up plans, it is difficult to forecast with any precision what amounts they will raise. However, we believe that health authorities should be capable of generating net additional income of £10 million to £20 million in 1988–89, £40 million to £50 million in 1989–90, and £60 million to £70 million in 1990–91.

  Attendance Allowance
  Mr. Nellist
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services what is his estimate of the numbers of under-twos otherwise eligible for attendance allowance but currently excluded by virtue of their age.

  Mr. Scott
  We estimate that there may be up to 3,000 children under the age of two years who might satisfy the medical criteria for an attendance allowance at either the lower or higher rate.

  Missing Girocheques
  Mr. Win Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services how many claimants in 1986 reported to his Department that they did not receive their Girocheques; and how many received payment to cover their loss.

  Mr. Portillo
  The information requested is not held centrally and could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Deaf People (Specialised Telephone Exchange)
  Mr. Cran
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services what recent discussions he has had with the Royal National Institute for the Deaf on the subject of financial support for the institute's specialised telephone exchange; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Scott
  Discussions have been held involving representatives of the RNID and British Telecom, and officials of the Government Departments concerned. Following these discussions RNID has made a formal 244
  application for help, including revised costings, under the Government's concerned technology programme. This application is receiving urgent consideration.

  Hospital Beds
  Mr. Fatchett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services what is his latest estimate of the number of beds in National Health Services hospitals closed on a permanent or temporary basis since January 1987.

  Mrs. Currie
  I regret that information for 1987 is not yet available.

  Competitive Tendering
  Mr. Curry
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services what savings have been made to the most recent available date through the implementation of the competitive tendering initiative.

  Mr. Newton
  As at the end of September 1987 estimated annual savings of some £103 million had been generated. For further information I refer my hon. Friend to my reply to the hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson) on 8 December 1987 at column 141.

  Elderly and Disabled Persons (Alarm Systems)
  Mr. Bowis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services whether the community care budget will cover the costs of dispersed alarm systems for the elderly and disabled who live in their own homes; and if he will make a statement.

  Mrs. Currie
  Decisions about the priorities for social services and housing provision, including dispersed alarm systems, are for the local authorities concerned to take in the light of local needs, circumstances and plans. The funding of alarm systems is certainly part of the wider question of funding community care. We have drawn this to the attention of Sir Roy Griffiths, who is reviewing the way public funds are used to support community care policy, and we will give further consideration to this issue in the light of his report.

  Shropshire District Health Authority
  Mr. Grocott
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services whether he has any plans to meet the chairman of the Shropshire district health authority to discuss the state of the authority's finances.

  Mr. Newton
  I recently met the chairman of Shropshire health authority. No further meetings are currently planned.

  Housing Benefit (War Widows)
  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services whether he has any plans to make special arrangements to enable local authorities to continue to disregard war widow's income in assessing housing benefit entitlement.

  Mr. Portillo
  The Housing Benefit (General) Regulations 1987 increase the amount of war widows' pensions that all local authorities are required to disregard from £4 to £5. In addition, under the Social Security Act 1986 individual local authorities continue to have
  245
  discretion to disregard for housing benefit purposes up to the full amount of any war widow's pension. Any other income which war widows may have is treated in the same way as the income of other claimants.

  NHS Expenditure
  Mr. Tim Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services what proportion of gross domestic product National Health Service expenditure currently represents; and what comparable information he has for France, West Germany and Italy.

  Mr. Newton
  In 1984 (the latest year for which comparable figures are available), public spending on health care as a percentage of gross domestic product was as follows:

  Percentage

  United Kingdom

  5·3

  France

  6·5

  Germany

  6·4

  Italy

  6·1

  These figures relate to financial inputs. It is more difficult to compare outputs, but, as medical costs are known to vary greatly between different countries, it is likely that the value obtained from public spending on health care also varies. Medical costs are relatively low in the United Kingdom.

  AIDS
  Mr. Barry Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services what advice and assistance his Department has given to the Haemophilia Society in administering the special trust fund for haemophiliacs with the AIDS virus.

  Mr. Newton
  Officials are working closely with officers of the Haemophilia Society on the arrangements to establish a special trust fund from which financial assistance can be given to those haemophiliacs infected with HIV and to their dependants.

  I hope that this work will be completed shortly and so enable the Government to pay to the trust fund the £10 million I announced in my statement to the House on 16 November.

  Mr. Yeo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services if he will meet the president of the Royal College of Physicians for the purpose of discussing measurement of the prevalence of HIV infection.

  Mr. Newton
  We have no plans to do so at the moment.

  Mr. Butler
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services if he will give the latest figures for the number of AIDS cases in(a) the North West regional health authority and (b) the Mersey regional health authority.

  Mr. Newton
  The number of AIDS cases reported to the communicable disease surveillance centre at the end of December 1987 was published by the Department yesterday. A copy of the figures is in the Library.

  Personal Pensions
  Mr. Fallon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services what incentives will be provided for people to join a personal pension scheme as a result of the Social Security Act 1986.
  246
  Mr. Portillo
  From 1 July 1988 it will be possible to contract out of the state earnings-related pension scheme through a personal pension from a scheme approved by the Occupational Pensions Board. Personal pensions will attract minimum contributions paid by the Department. These will be made up of a partial rebate of national insurance contributions and, until April 1993, a special incentive payment. In most cases the payments by the Department will include tax relief on the employee's share of the minimum contribution. People taking out a personal pension before 6 April 1989 will be able to backdate membership to 6 April 1987 and claim an extra year's minimum contributions, including the incentive.

  NHS (Revenue)
  Mr. Chapman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services what is his estimate for 1988–89 of the total revenue of the National Health Service which will come from the various charges for services; and how this figure compares with five and 10 years before.

  Mrs. Currie
  Estimated revenue from charges for National Health Service services in England is as follows:

  £ million

  Cash

  At 1987–88 prices

  1978–79

  144

  292

  1983–84

  394

  468

  1988–89

  1520

  498

  1 As estimated in "The Government's Expenditure Plans 1987–88 to 1989–90" January 1987 (Cm. 56-II).

  Unemployment and Poverty Traps
  Mr. Hayward
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services what measures he intends to take to reduce the effect of the unemployment and poverty traps.

  Mr. Scott
  I refer my hon. Friend to my reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Kent (Mr. Rowe) on 30 June 1987 at column 76.

  Child Abuse
  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services what action he plans to combat child abuse.

  Mr. Newton
  In my reply to my hon. Friend on 27 October, at columns 243–44, I referred to the programme of work that the Government had in hand. This includes the new guidance and circular on multi-agency working which was issued in draft last year; the special training initiative for professional staff, of which two stages have already begun and plans for a third stage are in hand; and the preparation of practice guidelines for social workers and for nurses and of guidance for doctors on the clinical diagnosis of sexual abuse. All this work will be published when we have considered the report from Mrs. Justice Butler-Sloss on Cleveland.

  Paediatric Nursing
  Mr. Budgen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services how many nurses are trained in paediatric intensive care now; and how many were so trained in 1979.
  247
  Mr. Newton
  A post-basic course for paediatric intensive care nursing was introduced in England in the year ended March 1987. Prior to that there was a post-basic course for special and intensive care of the newborn which was introduced in 1983. The numbers entering that training during the years ended March 1985, 1986 and 1987 were:

  Number

  1985

  287

  1986

  278

  1987

  393

  Blood Glucose Testing Strips
  Mr. Patrick Thompson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services when he now expects to be able to make blood glucose testing strips available on prescription to diabetics.

  Mr. Newton
  I refer my hon. Friend to my reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Exeter (Mr. Hannam) on 24 November 1987 at column 174. Discussions with manufacturers about supply arrangements and price will take place during January and February.

  Community Care Services
  Mr. Andrew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services what additional resources he proposes to make available to enable the care in the community strategy to work effectively.

  Mr. Newton
  I refer the hon. Member to my reply to the hon. Members for Monklands, West (Mr. Clarke) and for Dundee, East (Mr. McAllion) on 24 November 1987 at columns 160–61.

  Royal College of Nursing
  Mr. Wray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services when he last met representatives of the Royal College of Nursing.

  Mrs. Currie
  My right hon. Friend met the general secretary of the Royal College of Nursing on 21 July.

  Family Doctors
  Mr. Bellingham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services what measures he intends to take to increase competition between family doctors.

  Mr. Riddick
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services what effect the proposals in the White Paper "Promoting Better Health" will have on competition in the family practitioner services.

  Mr. Newton
  The proposals in the White Paper "Promoting Better Health" (Cm. 249) will stimulate competition within the family practitioner services in a number of ways. These include plans to increase the proportion of a doctor's income which is derived from capitation fees in order to encourage doctors to practise in ways which meet patients' needs. We will seek to relate doctors' pay more closely to individual performance and to the range of services they provide to patients, for example through incentive payments for reaching targets in preventive medicine. Procedures for changing doctor 248
  will be simplified. The Government will also be discussing with the dental profession the possibilities for change in the general dental practitioners' remuneration system with a view to introducing new incentives both for high efficiency and high standards of care.

  The White Paper set out measures to improve information to patients so that they are able to make an informed choice of family doctor and dentists. Family practitioner committees will be required to improve information about local practitioners on their lists and to make the lists more widely available. Practices will be encouraged to provide informative leaflets to their patients. Among the proposals for a revised contract for general dental practitioners recently put to the profession was a requirement for dentists to explain proposed treatment plans and their probable cost to patients.

  The Government will be discussing the reduction of restraints on advertising by doctors with the General Medical Council and welcome the steps taken by the Director General of Fair Trading to consult interested organisations on the terms of a proposal to refer the restrictions on dental advertising to the Monopolies and Mergers Commission.

  In respect of opticians, the principle of greater competition which already applies for the sale of spectacles will be extended to the provision of sight tests.

  Family Practitioner Services
  Mr. Jack
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services what proposals he has to make family practitioner services more responsive to the consumer.

  Mr. Newton
  The proposals in the White Paper "Promoting Better Health" (Cm. 249) to extend and increase competition in the family practitioner services, to provide more information about services and to simplify the complaints procedures will make services more responsive to the needs and wishes of consumers. Tighter qualifications for the receipt of basic practice allowance will encourage a greater basic commitment from family doctors to work in general practice. An increase in the proportion of their income which is derived from capitation fees will encourage doctors to practise in ways which meet patients' needs.

  A number of further measures, for example incentives to reach targets in preventive medicine, seek to relate doctors' pay more closely to their performance. Proposals for a revised contract intended to improve the quality and availability of NHS dental services and to secure a greater contractual commitment have also recently been put to the dental profession.

  The Government will further be discussing with the medical and dental professions amendment to their contracts to clarify the role of general medical and dental practitioners in prevention and health promotion, thus helping to meet the growing demand from consumers for advice and information on this important aspect of health care. Some of the additional resources released by the changes proposed in the White Paper will be devoted to training dentists in ways of making their practices more attractive to those who do not attend the dentist regularly. We will also make available funds to assist in the provision of health promotion material for display in pharmacies and will encourage an extended use of pharmacists' skills.

  In order that consumers should become better informed about services in their areas the Government will require

  249
  family practitioner committees to provide more information on their lists published of local practitioners, and will encourage the wide dissemination of practice leaflets. The Government will be discussing the reduction of restraints on advertising by doctors with the General Medical Council and welcome the steps taken by the Director General of Fair Trading to consult interested organisations on the terms of a proposal to refer the restrictions on dental advertising to the Monopolies and Mergers Commission. As further steps to improving standards and consumer choice in the general medical services, we shall be making it easier for patients to change doctor and will be requiring family practitioner committees to carry out consumer surveys in their areas and to act on the results.

  With regard to the general ophthalmic services the Government have already taken a number of steps to increase competition while retaining adequate safeguards to protect consumers. We are now seeking powers through the Health and Medicines Bill to extend the principle of increased competition to sight testing while protecting the consumer's freedom to purchase spectacles where they choose.

  Benefits (Disabled Claimants)
  Mr. McKelvey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services what further protection he proposes for disabled claimants who will have a reduced entitlement in April.

  Mr. Hannam
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services when he expects to announce the provision of a further top-up benefit for those severely disabled after April 1988 when the new income support system comes into effect.

  Mr. Eastham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services what further protection he proposes for disabled claimants who will have a reduced entitlement in April.

  Mr. Allen McKay
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services what further protection he proposes for disabled claimants who will have a reduced entitlement in April.

  Mr. Scott
  I refer the hon. Members and my hon. Friend to my reply to the hon. Member for Liverpool, West Derby (Mr. Wareing) earlier today.

  Drugs (Research)
  Mr. Galbraith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services if he will estimate the annual cost to the National Health Service of the additional investigations and extra time spent by patients in hospitals for research carried out on behalf of drug companies.

  Mr. Newton
  The level of research activity varies widely between health authorities and it is not possible to estimate the overall cost to the National Health Service.

  NHS Patients (Private Care)
  Mr. Flannery
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services how many people in the area of the Sheffield district health authority have had operations in private hospitals under the scheme to cut down waiting lists for operations in National Health Service hospitals since the scheme's inception.
  250
  Mr. Newton
  As at 31 December 1987, 20 patients from NHS waiting lists had had operations in private hospitals as part of the waiting list initiative, at a cost of £20,000. It is likely that this number will increase by some 100 by the end of the financial year. The Sheffield health district's initial waiting list fund allocation of £411,700 is planned to treat over 1,900 additional in-patients and some 2,660 extra out-patients in 1987–88.

  General Practitioners
  Mr. Boswell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services what was the average annual increase in the number of general practitioners between(a) 1973 and 1978 and (b)

  Mr. Newton
  The average annual increase in the number of general medical practitioners (unrestricted principals) in England between 1973 and 1978 was 209 compared with 428 between 1978 and 1986.

  NHS (Charges)
  Mr. Canavan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services what representations he has received on the proposals for additional charges for National Health Service patients.

  Mrs. Wise
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services how many representations he has received in support of his proposals to introduce charges for eye tests and dental examinations; and how many he has received expressing opposition.

  Mr. Bill Michie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services how many representations he has received in support of his proposals to introduce charges for eye tests and dental examinations; and how many he has received expressing opposition.

  Mr. Michael
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services how many representations he has received in support of his proposals to introduce charges for eye tests and dental examinations; and how many he has received expressing opposition.

  Mr. Newton
  I refer the hon. Members to my reply to the hon. Member for Liverpool, West Derby (Mr. Wareing) on 11 January.

  Regional Health Authorities (Staff)
  Mr. Hayes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services what is the change in the number of administrative staff employed by regional health authorities since 1979 by region.

  Mr. Newton
  The numbers of whole-time equivalent administrative and clerical staff employed by regional health authorities in September 1979 and September 1986 were as follows:

  Regional Health Authorities

  1979

  1986

  Northern

  510

  450

  Yorkshire

  630

  510

  Trent

  720

  940

  East Anglian

  300

  330

  North West Thames

  370

  290

  North East Thames

  430

  540

  South East Thames

  450

  590

  251

  Regional Health Authorities

  1979

  1986

  South West Thames

  450

  550

  Wessex

  460

  310

  Oxford

  370

  530

  South Western

  520

  430

  West Midlands

  1,050

  1,060

  Mersey

  510

  490

  North Western

  830

  790

  Total

  7,610

  7,820

  The figures given for each RHA are not necessarily comparable, since the effects of developments since 1979, including the NHS reorganisation of 1982 and centralisation in such areas as supplies and stores, have varied between regions. The figures are rounded to the nearest 10 whole-time equivalents.

  Reform
  Mr. Baldry
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services how much extra will be spent on low-income families as a result of the changes to income-related benefits in April 1988.

  Mr. Scott
  Comparisons between the new income-related benefit schemes and what might have happened under the old schemes must be hypothetical. However, on an annual basis, and using the assumptions underlying the structural tables in "Impact of the Reformed Structure of Income Related Benefits" (published at the time of the uprating statement on 27 October), the disposable incomes of all those receiving income-related benefits and caring for dependent children will be some £200 million higher once housing costs have been met.

  Mr. Frank Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services if he will list the number of claimants, together with the number of dependants, who will not receive any increase in benefit when income support comes into effect; and if he will subdivided these data according to whether the claimant is(a) a pensioner, (b) sick or disabled, (c) unemployed, and (d) a single parent.

  Mr. Scott
  Using the assumptions underlying table 1A of the "Impact of the Reformed Structure of Income-Related Benefits" (published at the time of the uprating statement on 27 October) the information is as follows:

  Number of claimants (thousands)

  Number of dependants (thousands)

  a. Pensioners

  820

  185

  b. Sick or disabled

  80

  30

  c. Unemployed and others

  790

  325

  d. Single parents

  230

  390

  Total

  1,920

  930

  General Practitioners (New Technology)
  Mr. Butler
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services if he will further review his policies with regard to the use of new technology by general practitioners.

  Mr. Newton
  The Government continue to support such developments in general practice and recently announced in the White Paper "Promoting Better Health" that they will encourage the continued development of 252
  information and communication technology and computerisation in primary care, especially with regard to health promotion and prevention of ill health.

  Mobility and Attendance Allowances
  Mr. Stern
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services what is the average length of time that passes between an application for mobility or attendance allowance, and its final decision by him after all other appeal procedures have been exhausted.

  Mr. Scott
  Decisions, including the final decisions, on claims for attendance allowance and mobility allowance are made by independent adjudicating authorities. I regret that information is not kept in a form from which the average time for claims to go fully through the appeals procedures can be calculated.

  Information Technology Staff
  Mr. Michael Marshall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services what proportion of the professional information technology staff in his Department, including programmers, systems analysts and managers, is based in London and the south-east.

  Mr. Portillo
  Of those civil servants in DHSS wholly employed on information technology tasks (as specified in Treasury—Central Computer and Telecommunications Agency guidelines) in grades from executive officer to unified grade 7, 26 per cent. work in London and the south-east.

  Mr. Michael Marshall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services how many professional level information technology staff are employed by his Department, including programmers, systems analysts and managers; and how many trainees there are for such posts.

  Mr. Portillo
  I regret that information is not available in the form requested. The Department does not maintain separate statistics for programmers, systems analysts, managers or trainees and such detailed information could be provided only at disproportionate cost. However, the total number of civil servants in the DHSS, wholly employed on information technology tasks (as specified in Treasury — Central Computer and Telecommunications Agency guidelines) in grades from executive officer to unified grade 7 is 1,494.

  Hospices
  Mr. Harry Greenway
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services what support his Department gives to the hospice movement; in what form it is given; and if he will make a statement.

  Mrs. Currie
  The level and form of support for individual hospices is a matter for local health authorities who were given detailed guidance on this earlier in the year in circular HC(87)4, a copy of which is in the Library. This stated:"Where a voluntary group provides a service that represents an essential element in a health authority's overall plans for terminal care, the health authority should agree with them a contribution to the costs of that service".

  Patients in independent hospices may be eligible for supplementary benefit to help with charges up to £230 per

  253
  week. Specialist in-patient, home care and hospital support services for the terminally ill are also provided directly by a number of health authorities.

  The Department has approved direct grants of £600,000 to the London Lighthouse which is building the first hospice specifically for people with AIDS, and £200,000 to the Mildmay Mission hospital towards the cost of adapting one ward into a unit to provide hospice care for people terminally ill with AIDS.

  Operations (Costs)
  Mr. Nicholas Bennett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services what information he has as to the relative costs of operations and other treatments in different district health authorities; and if he will make a statement on any research currently being undertaken.

  Mrs. Currie
  Information on the costs of specific operations and other treatments in district health authorities is not routinely collected. The Department is not currently funding research as such on this subject. However, as part of the resource management initiative, information systems are being developed which, used in conjunction with patient classification systems, will enable comparisons to be made of resources used to treat patients suffering from similar types of illness or requiring similar treatment procedures. We hope to have the first results of the new system available in April.

  Young Claimants
  Mr. McAllion
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services what representations he has received about his policy towards 17-year-olds who are not still in education and also choose to remain on social security rather than take a job, or accept a training place.

  Mr. Scott
  Up to 8 January we have received a total of 53 letters concerning the Government's proposal to withdraw the general entitlement to income support from 16 and 17-year-olds. Most of these expressed concern about particular groups such as the disabled and the homeless and the representations made will be fully considered when the regulations exempting certain groups from the general provision are framed.

  Cancer Screening
  Ms. Harman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services whether all district health authorities are still expected to meet the target of 31 March 1988 for the introduction of cervical cancer screening; and whether this screening will cover all women at risk.

  Mrs. Currie
  The team led by Sir Roy Griffiths is monitoring progress and present indications are that all district health authorities should meet the target date for the introduction of computerised call and recall systems for cervical cancer screening.

  All women aged 20–64 will be invited for screening within five years of implementation of the system, unless their general practitioners have indicated that they should be excluded.

  Revised guidance to health authorities and family practitioner committees on the organisation of cervical cancer screening services has been issued today and copies placed in the Library.

  Health Education Authority (Publicity)
  Mr. Michael Brown
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services if he will list in the Official Report the advertising, marketing and public relations consultants currently retained by the Health Education Authority and the criteria by which these consultants are chosen and their performance assessed.

  Mrs. Currie
  The Health Education Authority currently retains two advertising agencies—Abbott Mead Vickers and TBWA. In appointing and assessing the performance of such agencies, the authority employs the criteria normally used by public and commercial bodies.

  Fish Oils
  Mr. Butler
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services whether he will make it his policy to promote the consumption of the fish oils containing docosohexaenoic and eicosapentaenoic acids in the prevention of coronary disease; and if he will make a statement.

  Mrs. Currie
  We have no plans to do so. The Government are concerned that people should eat healthy, balanced diets, which can be done without promoting the consumption of any particular food or food component.

  Maxepa capsules and liquid, which contain eicosopentaenoic acid and docosohexaenoic acid, are available for prescription under the National Health Service, but their licensed indication is
  "the reduction of plasma triglycerides in patients with severe hypertriglyceridaemia, and who are judged to be at special risk of ischaemic heart disease and/or pancreatis".

  They are not licensed for general use in the prevention of coronary heart disease.

  Perinatal Mortality
  Mr. Butler
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services what is the percentage change in perinatal mortality between 1978 and the latest available year in(a) the north-west region and (b) England as a whole.

  Mrs. Currie
  The information is given in the table.

  Perinatal mortality rates for England and North West Standard Region 1978 and 1986: percentage decrease from 1978 to 1986

  1Perinatal mortality rates

  Percentage decrease

  Area of usual residence

  1978

  1986

  1978–86

  England

  15·45

  9·53

  38·3

  North West Standard Region

  17·00

  9·95

  41·5

  1 Still births and deaths under one week per 1,000 total live and still births.

  Dentists (Compensation)
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services if, pursuant to his reply of 7 December,Official Report, column 34, he will make a statement on his discussions with the British Dental Association, on compensation for dentists who may be obliged to sell their businesses at depressed prices as a result of proposals in the Health and Medicines Bill.

  Mr. Newton
  Officials of the Department held the first of a series of meetings with the British Dental Association
  255
  on 8 January, to discuss the proposals in the Bill relating to the retirement of dentists. No conclusions have yet been reached.

  Public Appointments
  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services if he will list the names of all the people appointed to public bodies by his Department who are currently in office, giving for each the office concerned and the date of appointment.

  Mr. Portillo
  I regret this information could be provided only at disproportionate cost, since the Department is responsible for 133 public bodies with appointments totalling over 10,000.

  Social Work Diploma
  Mrs. Margaret Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services whether his Department is yet in a position to make a statement on funding for the proposed diploma of qualification in social work, in the light of the training recommendations of the recent Blom-Cooper report.

  Mr. Newton
  The Government are currently considering the proposals for the qualifying diploma in social work and hope to make an announcement shortly.

  Drug Damage Compensation
  Mr. Ashley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services (1) if he will start preparing legislation to establish a no-fault scheme for drug damage compensation which would provide for appropriate and prompt payments to be made by the pharmaceutical industry to established victims;

  (2) what estimates are known to his Department of the cost of providing a no-fault compensation scheme for drug-damaged victims.

  Mr. Newton
  The Government have no plans to introduce legislation to establish a no-fault scheme of this kind and have no reliable estimates of the costs involved. From 1 March 1988 when the relevant provisions of the Consumer Protection Act 1987 come into force, people who can establish that they have suffered damage from using a defective medicinal product will no longer have also to prove negligence before they can establish liability.

  Mr. Ashley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services what representations he has received about establishing a no-fault compensation payment scheme for victims of drug damage; and what was the thrust of the views expressed.

  Mr. Newton
  None, other than those put forward in the House by the right hon. Member himself.

  Mr. Ashley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services what information he has of the amount pharmaceutical companies now pay for insurance cover against drug damage compensation payments.

  Mr. Newton
  I regret that information of the kind referred to is not held by the Department.

  Broadmoor (Outside Visits)
  Mr. Greg Knight
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services if he has any proposals to alter the procedures operating over the past 12 months at 256
  Broadmoor relating to outside visits for shopping or social purposes for convicted prisoners; and if he will make a statement.

  Mrs. Currie
  Officials from the Department and the Home Office are currently reviewing the arrangements under which special hospital patients, including those transferred to the hospitals from prisons, are allowed to go on outings into the community. It is our intention to issue updated guidance to all the special hospitals.

  Mr. Greg Knight
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services how many convicted persons have escaped from Broadmoor whilst taking part in shopping expeditions or public house visits during the past 12 months; what criteria are applied to permission for such visits; and if he will make a statement.

  Mrs. Currie
  One patient absconded during an outing from the hospital during the 12-month period up to 30 November 1987. He had not been transferred to the hospital from prison. Before a special hospital patient is allowed to go on an outing, approval must be given by his or her responsible medical officer, the clinical team and the medical director. In the case of patients subject to restrictions under sections 41 or 49 of the Mental Health Act 1983 the consent of the Home Secretary is also required. The arrangements in relation to the accompanying staff must be approved by a senior nurse manager at the hospital.

  Mr. Greg Knight
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services on how many occasions during the last 12 months inmates of Broadmoor have been allowed to visit public houses; and of these how many were convicted prisoners.

  Mrs. Currie
  I regret that such records are not kept.

  Mr. Greg Knight
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services on how many occasions during the last 12 months inmates of Broadmoor have been allowed to take part in shopping expeditions; and of these how many were convicted prisoners.

  Mrs. Currie
  During the 12-month period up to 30 November 1987, 26 male patients and 14 female patients took part in 40 and 30 shopping expeditions respectively; some patients were involved in more than one excursion. Two of the male patients had been transferred to the hospital from prison.

  Worth House Children's Home
  Mr. Gale
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services when he expects to receive the report of the social services inspector into allegations of further neglect and poor supervision at the Worth house children's home, Herne Bay; and if he will make a statement.

  Mrs. Currie
  I have now received from the social services inspectorate a report on Worth House private children's home, Herne Bay. The inspection found that standards of care at Worth House were more than adequate. The Department will continue to discuss with the London boroughs' children's regional planning committee the wider issue of the placement of children in accommodation which is, as far as practicable, near to their home area.

  London Couriers (Accidents)
  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services if he will give for each year since 1979 the cost to the National Health Service in London of treatment to victims of accidents involving bicycle and motor cycle couriers.

  Mrs. Currie
  I regret that the information requested is not available.

  Recovery of Benefits
  Mr. Thurnham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services what action he is taking to pursue the recommendations made by the Public Accounts Committee in its report of 19 November 1987 that the Department should recover social security benefits when awards of damages in tort are made; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Scott
  Following consideration of the report, we have appointed management consultants Touche Ross to establish how much would be recoverable to DHSS if 100 per cent. of social security benefits were recovered from awards paid in consequence of an injury. The consultants will also assess the administrative implications of an effective recovery scheme for insurance companies and DHSS. We expect a report in April 1988 and will consider its findings before deciding whether and, if so, how to proceed with a recovery scheme.

  Public Health Laboratory Service
  Mrs. Margaret Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services what is the revenue cost of the public health laboratory service in each of the last five years.
  258
  Mr. Newton
  [holding answer 11 January 1988]: The revenue expenditure of the public health laboratory service in each of the last five years was:

  million

  1982–83

  28·6

  1983–84

  30·8

  1984–85

  32·3

  1985–86

  35·9

  1986–87

  38·7

  These figures are taken from the board's annual accounts.

  NHS (Youth Training Scheme)
  Mr. Wareing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services if he will list the organisations he intends to consult about the proposal to employ young people on YTS schemes within the National Health Service.

  Mr. Newton
  [holding answer 11 January 1988]: The recently published feasibility study on the extended use of youth training schemes in the National Health Service is currently being considered by the four bodies which sponsored it—the Department, the Manpower Services Commission, the United Kingdom Central Council for Nursing, Midwifery and Health Visiting and the NHS Training Authority. If certain ideas in the study were to be pursued—such as a national framework for training outcomes from YTS—there will need to be consultations with the staff side (to which copies of the report have already been sent) and others. The many health authorities which already run YTS programmes are subject to the normal YTS rules regarding consultation; local consultation will continue to be required for any new programmes in line with MSC requirements.

Preamble
The House met at half-past two of the clock: The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of Rochester.
The Earl of Albemarle—Sat first in Parliament after the death of his grandfather.

Basic Science Research: Funding
Lord Peston: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they will provide additional funds for research in basic science.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Education and Science (Baroness Hooper): My Lords, my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Education and Science announced on 3rd November 1987, additional funds for research in basic science in 1988–89 and the two subsequent years. Funding for scientific research in 1989–90 to 1991–92 will be reviewed by the Government in this year's public expenditure survey.
Lord Peston: My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness for her Answer. May I remind her—
Noble Lords: Question!
Lord Peston: My Lords, does the Minister recall the debate we had in November, just following that statement, in which all sides of the House expressed strong support for basic science and suggested that it might be a good idea to review the expenditure statement of her right honourable friend the Secretary of State? Is there any likelihood of urgent action to meet the needs of science, which are so important for our country's future?
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, when studying the advisory board's report, the Government are considering any additional resources that may be required. They are well aware of the debate and the comments made by your Lordships during it.

Drink-Driving: Christmas Campaign
2.39 p.m.
Lord Dormand of Easington: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they consider that their drink-driving campaign over the holiday period was successful.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Transport (Lord Brabazon of Tara): My Lords, Yes. The media response to the launch of the Christmas campaign was excellent and the subject was given wide coverage throughout the holiday period. Surveys indicate that the campaign has made a considerable impact, although we must wait for definitive figures. There is welcome evidence of a hardening of attitudes against the drinking driver, but drinking and driving remains our most serious road safety problem. There will be no let-up in the Government's efforts to deal with it.
Lord Dormand of Easington: My Lords, I welcome the overall drop in the number of positive breath tests and accidents. Does the Minister agree that the reduction is small and that is some parts of the country the figures increased considerably? Is not the main lesson to be learnt—I think that the Minister has already said this—that there are no grounds for
complacency? Is the time not now appropriate to introduce random breath testing?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, I agree that there are no grounds for complacency. One needs to take the figures for random breath tests which have so far been given with a certain amount of caution because we have not yet had the figures for the overall number of tests. They will not be available for a little while. We shall have to wait a little to obtain the percentage of positive breath tests.
With regard to random breath testing, the police already have wide powers under the legislation. They can stop at random. They can test if they have reasonable cause to suspect the presence of alcohol in a driver's body, if a moving traffic offence is committed or if an accident is involved.
Lord Inglewood: My Lords, has my noble friend any information relevant to these campaigns in neighbouring countries so that it can be compared with what has happened here?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, we keep closely in touch with the United States, Canada and Australia. Despite some dramatic changes in those countries, they are no more successful overall in containing the problem than we are.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, would it be possible to increase the number of police officers and vehicles on the motorways? I am sure that all Members of the House and the Minister will agree that the very appearance of a police officer in his vehicle on a motorway or on a major road has a dramatic and worthwhile effect, irrespective of whether drivers are drunk.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, enforcement is a matter for the police. Their efforts reflect society's demands. They take their responsibilities seriously every day, not just in the holiday season. Last year there were 120,000 convictions for drink-driving.
Lord Wigoder: My Lords, are the Government aware that on the Continent random testing is

1069
extensively carried out and meets with remarkably little resentment from sober drivers?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, I am sure that the noble Lord is correct. The question is whether police resources are better spent in random breath testing or in using their already extensive powers.
Lord Underhill: My Lords, does the noble Lord appreciate that I agree with what he says about the success of the publicity campaign? He said that there were no definitive figures. When those figures are available, will adequate publicity be given to an analysis of them?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, I am sure that when the figures are eventually available from the police forces a good deal of publicity will be given to them. We are encouraged by the amount of attention that the media are now giving to this subject, not through paid publicity but through editorial coverage. That is encouraging.
Lord De Freyne: My Lords, would the noble Lord answering on this subject today take into account the quality of vision; that is, the eye rather than the breath?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, this Question is related to drink-driving and there is no doubt that the effect of drink on people's ability to drive, however well they may think they drive, is fairly dramatic.
Lord Dormand of Easington: My Lords, in view of the improvement brought about by this short campaign, will the Government now consider continuing the campaign against drink-driving?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, our campaign nowadays is targeted to three phases throughout the year: July, October and December. We plan to continue that in the coming year.

Higher Education Funding
2.43 p.m.
Baroness David: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government what studies have been made of the comparison of the funding of public sector higher education and of the University Grants Committee funding of universities since the Green Paper of 1985.
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, the Department of Education and Science published a paper entitled Higher Education: Funding Across Sectors to support the 1985 Green Paper published as Cmnd. 9524. The Government have undertaken no subsequent comparative studies. However, the needs of universities and of other higher education institutions are reviewed annually in the course of the Government's decisions on public expenditure.
Baroness David: My Lords, will the Minister accept that, even allowing for research costs and the existence in the university sector of expenses for faculties like medicine, there is still at today's prices a differential of something like £500 a year between the amount spent on a university student and on a public sector student?
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, I understand that the figures published in the department's December statistical bulletin 14/87 show an even higher differential than that quoted by the noble Baroness. However, the figures in the bulletin were derived simply by dividing relevant expenditure by the relevant student population. They are crude calculations which take no account of differences in the funding arrangements under which each sector operates, nor of the very different research efforts in the two types of institution.
Baroness David: My Lords, does the Minister think that is an acceptable situation? I should also like to ask whether attention is being paid to all the criticisms by HMI and by the validating bodies that the amount of money going into public sector higher education is simply not sufficient and that courses may well not be validated in the future unless the resources for equipment and so on are improved.
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, I find I cannot be in agreement with the noble Baroness on her last point. However, I would judge that the greater clarity in planning and accountability which are likely to be introduced with the new Universities Funding Council and the Polytechnics and Colleges Funding Council in the proposals in the Education Reform Bill will make comparisons of various kinds much more possible.
Lord Glenamara: My Lords, do not the figures, which the noble Baroness has not quoted, show that the country is getting first-rate higher education on the cheap from the polytechnics? This is seen throughout the country in building maintenance and replacement of equipment, where comparatively small items have now become major capital items. No amount of extra accountability will cure the situation. What the polytechnics need is a great deal more money.
Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone: My Lords, that is what we all need.
Baroness Hooper: Hear, hear, my Lords! The Government certainly recognise the excellent job which has been done in the polytechnics over the years. It is precisely because the polytechnics and colleges have been so successful in what they do best that the Government are offering them the new deal set out in the Education Reform Bill. Nevertheless, the two sectors are not the same.
Lord Annan: My Lords, does not the noble Baroness think that these questions are misjudged? Surely one of the things which has bedevilled the expansion of higher education in this country is parity of esteem between institutions in which it is

1071
thought necessary that every institution be paid exactly the same amount and every institution have exactly the same length of degree. Is it not necessary that there should be differentials between different instititions?
Baroness Hooper: Yes, indeed, my Lords. The situation is not as simple as some noble Lords may have suggested. We believe the two sectors do retain and will retain differences in important aspects of their provision. The universities, after all, have a considerable commitment to basic research, while the polytechnics and colleges are mainly teaching institutions. The Government will continue to address the funding of all higher education on the basis that the provision is different.
Baroness David: My Lords, granted all that, surely the need to have the courses sufficiently well endowed for them to be validated by CNAA and so on and to be thought adequate by HMI is extremely important. Whatever the noble Lord, Lord Annan, says, it seems to me that this is something which needs to be taken into consideration.
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, it is taken into consideration.
Lord Orr-Ewing: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that there are universities which manage to get in four terms a year rather than three? Thus they sometimes get the same amount with better results by courses lasting two years instead of three. If this were more widely adopted and we had this competition, it might well be possible to expand quality and standards, as well as the number of people in our universities and polytechnics. Could this not be considered most seriously in view of the results already being obtained at Buckingham?
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, yes, I am fully aware of the institution which conducts its arrangements in that way. All I can say is that in the debate and discussions which have been carried on in the light of the Education Reform Bill, all manner of new ideas and concepts were brought up. The whole question of our total education system is under continual review.
Lord Glenamara: My Lords, will the noble Baroness say what is the good of parity of esteem if the polytechnics cannot afford to paint the front door, repair a flat roof or replace the computer? They really are hard up and the position is building into an extremely serious situation. Will the noble Baroness recognise that these past five or six years of neglect of building repairs and maintenance and replacement of equipment have led to an appalling situation?
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, the Government's proposals in the Education Reform Bill are to give the polytechnics autonomy and to release them from the financial control of local education authorities. With the powers of financial delegation that they will now have they will be far better able to cope with the priorities of each individual institution.
Lord Monkswell: My Lords, what assurance can the Minister give that central government funding of polytechnics will be any better than local authority funding of polytechnics, given that it is the Government's restrictions on local authority funding which are causing the problems to start with?
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, I do not think that the noble Lord is aware of the true position which is outlined in the Bill. The funding of the polytechnics will be given to the PCFC—the new funding council that is to be set up—but each individual institution will have considerable control of its own financial arrangements.
Baroness David: My Lords, will the noble Baroness say who will be giving the money to the PCFC?
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, ultimately it is the taxpayer who gives the money to everybody.

Weather: Long-Range Forecasting
2.51 p.m.
Lord Campbell of Croy: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government what action they are taking to encourage international cooperation on improving long-range weather forecasting.
The Minister of State for Defence Procurement (Lord Trefgarne): My Lords, the Meteorological Office is involved in a variety of studies and research programmes with both national and multi-national agencies, but sadly the success of long-range forecasting remains at best modest. I regret that I cannot forecast much improvement in that situation.
Lord Campbell of Croy: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for his full and frank reply. However, with the latest advances in technology, including the proposed British laser mechanism to operate from a satellite, before long can we expect more reliable and accurate forecasts of gales and blizzards?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, I think that I should counsel my noble friend to the effect that there is no magic solution just around the corner for this particular problem. The system to which he refers is one which will measure the wind speed and direction from the satellite. I have no doubt that this will be of great benefit to our forecasters, but even that system will be subject to some shortcomings: for example, it will not be able to measure wind speed through cloud cover.
Lord Irving of Dartford: My Lords, does the noble Lord agree that the recent storm and the resulting serious damage highlights the need for efficient weather forecasting services which are adequately funded? Is he aware of the European Parliament's call for co—operation in this field? Is he further aware

1073
that at the geographers' and geophysicists' conference in Vancouver it was forecast that with proper research, before too long it will be possible to forecast up to eight months fairly accurately? If the Government are not prepared to investigate these matters there can never be as efficient a service as would be possible if the proper support was given.
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, if I may say so, I think that the idea that we shall be able to forecast accurately eight months ahead is somewhat fanciful. As the noble Lord pointed out, there was some difficulty over the storm which struck the southern part of the United Kingdom towards the end of last year. That was a problem of hours, not days or months.
Lord Grimond: My Lords, does the Minister accept that many of us would agree with him that if we could be sure that a forecast was right eight hours ahead, we should be in a greatly improved situation, at least in the part of the world where I live, which admittedly is rather subject to storms? Can the Minister say whether the improvement in long-term forecasting will improve short-term forecasting, because that is what most people such as fishermen are interested in? I wholly agree with the Minister that the idea that one can have accurate forecasts with all the expertise at the Meteorological Office and people's prickling of thumbs and Norwegian fishermen who are always broadcasting their views is totally mistaken. The public should not be encouraged to think that any forecasts are more than an intelligent guess.
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, I do not think that it is fair to say that short-term forecasting is an intelligent guess. Indeed, drawing on my own experience in the aviation world, the very short-term forecasting provided for that service, for example, is extremely good. I should like to pay tribute to the Meteorological Office in that way. However, the noble Lord is right that the longer-term forecasting is a much more difficult science and there is certainly no easy solution just around the corner.
Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone: My Lords, despite what might have been inferred from some of the supplementary questions, is it not a fact that the services provided by the Meteorological Office of this country are highly regarded throughout the world and even operate at a profit to Her Majesty's Government?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, I am afraid that they do not operate at a profit. The total cost of the Meteorological Office is some £80 million a year and it earns about £20 million in fees from various sources. However, my noble and learned friend is quite right; its services are highly valued around the world. For example, there has recently been a programme of research in connection with rainfall in central Africa to which the Meteorological Office has contributed most effectively and, I understand, to the considerable satisfaction of those who live in those parts.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, following the recent storm is it not the case that the Minister's right honourable friend commissioned two distinguished scientists to look into the meteorological services in this country? Will the Minister say how long this study will take and when he expects a report?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, the noble Lord is quite right. After the recent catastrophic storm my right honourable friend did ask the Meteorological Office itself to study what had gone wrong and at the same time asked two distinguished experts to look at the study which the Meteorological Office prepared. I understand that both those reports are likely to be with Ministers very shortly and certainly both will be published.
Lord Campbell of Croy: My Lords, will my noble friend arrange for the Meteorological Office to be put in touch with the sources to which the noble Lord, Lord Irving of Dartford, referred? Will he also perhaps arrange for them to be put in touch with those who arrange the cricket programme in the United Kingdom?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, the Meteorological Office services are of course available to anybody who wants them. As for the conference to which I think the noble Lord, Lord Irving of Dartford, referred, I imagine that the Meteorological Office was represented at that conference. Perhaps I may inquire further into that.
Lord Irving of Dartford: My Lords, will the noble Lord accept that proper tribute has been paid to the effectiveness of short-range forecasting at the moment? Will he bear in mind that it is not many years ago since that looked like crystal-gazing too? Therefore the proper resources applied to the very people who have created an effective short-term service will eventually create a better long-term service, but they need the support and they need the resources.
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, the noble Lord referred to resources. I have already mentioned in reply to my noble and learned friend the cost of the Meteorological Office, which is around £80 million a year, about £8 million of which is already deployed for research purposes.

Business
Lord Denham: My Lords, it may be for the convenience of the House if I announce that the Committee stage of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Bill will be adjourned at approximately 7.30 p.m. for approximately one hour and that during this adjournment the Farm Land and Rural Development Bill will be further considered on Report.

DTI: Future Role
2.59 p.m.
The Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (Lord Young of Graffham): My Lords, with the leave of the House, I shall make a statement about major changes in the role of the DTI and its policies.
We have been engaged in a major review of the main activities and organisation of the DTI. Our decisions are set out in the White Paper entitled DTI—the Department for Enterprise which will be laid before the House later today. We conducted this review building on the new objectives for the DTI which we published on 13th October last year. In our opinion, considerable changes in the Government's support to industry will be required to face the challenges of 1992 and to succeed against ever-increasing international competition.
In an economy with a GDP of some £400 billion the main role of the DTI with its budget of £1 billion must be, in conjunction with other departments, to influence attitudes and to encourage open markets in order to promote enterprise and prosperity.
We shall start by helping young people to learn about business and enterprise. We shall work with employers with the aim of giving one teacher in 10 each year some personal experience of the world of business. We shall further aim to ensure that every young person will have at least two weeks' work experience before leaving school as part of his or her preparation for employment. We shall help young people to become more knowledgeable about new technology. We shall increase our support for computer aided design and other advanced technologies in schools, further education and teacher training colleges. We shall work in partnership with commerce and industry to improve management education and development and spread awareness of best practices in new technologies. Those are essential to the competitiveness of British industry and commerce.
We shall help small and medium-sized firms to improve their performance in marketing, design, quality and advanced manufacturing methods. We are putting in hand forthwith a major new initiative to encourage firms with fewer than 500 employees to take expert consultancy advice in those key management functions. We shall extend the programmes in April to cover business planning and financial and information systems. We shall provide more than £50 million in the next financial year and some £250 million in total in the three years to 1991 to encourage firms to take advantage of this initiative.
In 1992 the single European market will be completed, ending most barriers to trade within the European Community. The opening of the Channel Tunnel in 1993 will make us physically a part of this much bigger market for all our goods and services. We shall therefore make it a priority to help business prepare for, and benefit from, this great extension of the market within which we must compete.
The need to open up competitive markets is an essential strand in DTI's policies. Competition policy is the key element in that process. As a result of the
1076
review which was announced in another place in June 1986, we propose a fundamental overhaul of the Restrictive Trade Practices Act. It has been proved increasingly ineffective in controlling damaging illegal cartels. The new legislation which we are considering would prohibit agreements with anti-competitive effects. It will be backed by stronger investigative powers and effective penalties. A detailed Green Paper on that matter will be issued shortly.
The review also covered mergers. The main but not exclusive consideration in mergers policy will continue to be the need to maintain competitive market conditions. We are proposing two principal changes to speed up the decisions on whether individual mergers can go ahead. The first would be a new formal but voluntary procedure for giving advance notice of prospective mergers. That would give automatic clearance for simple cases within four weeks. The second proposal would give more flexibility in dealing with possible competition problems; the Director General of the Office of Fair Trading would have the power to obtain legally binding undertakings from the parties to a merger over such issues as agreed divestment as an alternative to a reference to the MMC.
We are particularly concerned to encourage enterprise in the less prosperous areas of the country and in the inner cities. We shall therefore be increasing and strengthening the DTI's regional office network and expanding their role. The new consultancy initiatives which I have just announced will offer higher levels of grant both in the assisted areas and in urban programme areas outside the assisted areas. Consultancy projects will receive support of two-thirds of the cost in those areas compared with 50 per cent. in the rest of the country.
New incentives will be introduced from April this year to encourage the growth and development of small firms in development areas. Their growth will help the full revival of regional economies which is the aim of our policy. Firms with fewer than 25 employees will he able to apply for investment grants of 15 per cent. towards the cost of fixed assets and innovation grants of 50 per cent. for product and process development. We shall be targeting our help on those firms at a critical stage of their development—those which may not yet have developed the key management skills needed to survive and compete. Our policies are designed to encourage self-generated business development in the regions, both in manufacturing and services, so that there is a broader, lasting base for economic growth.
Regional selective assistance will remain available in the development and intermediate areas. Unlike RDG, regional selective assistance requires companies to show that they genuinely need public money in order to proceed and that their projects are viable and will produce identifiable and significant benefits. Internationally mobile projects will therefore be able to benefit from regional selective assistance as before.
We have concluded that this approach to business development will do more to strengthen regional economies than an automatic subsidy to all capital

1077
investment. A Bill will therefore be introduced in another place today to end the RDG scheme. No new applications for grant will be accepted after 31st March this year. The Bill will provide for transitional arrangements. Those changes will apply in Scotland and Wales as well as in England. Regional policy will remain based on the existing regional map. Let me make it clear that we are not proposing any reduction in the Government's total regional spend. But we believe that existing resources can be spent more effectively.
Inner cities will benefit from the higher level of grant for the consultancy initiatives. The Government will be publishing a review of their policies for the inner cities and will be taking steps to encourage more private sector involvement in urban regeneration.
We have also reviewed our department's policy on civil research and development. In future, we shall concentrate our help on collaborative research projects and the transfer of technology which would otherwise not take place. The White Paper announces our support for new collaborative programmes in both information technology and superconductivity. Research and development, which is at the stage of commercial exploitation, should be the responsibility of the private sector. The general schemes of single company support for innovation are therefore being ended today. We believe that our spending on research and development will be more effectively used in collaborative research bringing different companies and the academic world much closer together.
DTI will be a catalyst for enterprise, innovation and change. But enterprising attitudes will only develop in open markets. We shall therefore continue our efforts to cut red tape so that business can concentrate on its primary task of creating the wealth on which society depends. The proposed changes in policies which I have announced will result in an increase in spending by DTI over the provision that was planned for last year. Our proposed expenditure on regional programmes in Great Britain represents an increase over earlier plans. We shall also increase previously planned expenditure and support for collaborative research, technology transfer and small business innovation.
The White Paper also announces changes in the organisation of DTI which will enable it to be more effective in the delivery of its services. The Enterprise Initiative will be marketed clearly and strongly so that business is aware of the potential for action through self-help. And the expansion of our regional network will enable us to get closer to our customers where they live and work. Furthermore, industry divisions in the DTI, which up to now have been seen as sponsoring specific industries, will be replaced by market divisions which focus on the markets for a range of goods and services rather than specific supplier industries. Emphasis will be given to issues which span all industry and commerce, especially in technology.
The changes which are announced in the White Paper reflect the objectives which we set for the DTI last year. Real change, to give Britain a lasting basis
1078
for prosperity, requires individuals to alter the way in which they manage their businesses and approach their work. The best way to accomplish that is to influence people's attitudes, to help them acquire the skills and information which they need to compete effectively and to give them the scope and opportunity in open markets to compete. The White Paper policies which I have outlined today represent a consistent and co-ordinated strategy for enterprise. The DTI—the department for enterprise—will now carry that enterprise strategy forward.
My Lords, that concludes the Statement.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, the House will be grateful to the noble Lord the Secretary of State for making this important Statement. We clearly have to wait for a careful reading of the White Paper before giving a considered response. I hope that the noble Lord will accept that any remarks and questions that I may make or put are of a preliminary nature. No doubt in the course of time we shall have an opportunity to debate these matters as they deserve to be debated, because as he rightly says these are major changes in the role of the DTI and its policies.
We welcome any measure or statement of intention that will raise morale in the Civil Service. The Civil Service has in our view taken a lot of stick and has had difficulties over the past few years. In the DTI particularly, before the noble Lord became Secretary of State, morale undoubtedly suffered. Any measures that the noble Lord may introduce to improve that morale will be supported from this side.
Furthermore, clearly we must accept the noble Lord's remarks in the Statement about helping young people to learn about business and trying to marry our education system with the real world in the sense of the industrial and service economy. Whether or not it is the right way to proceed, I shall postpone comment until I have read the White Paper. I think the noble Lord and I see relatively eye to eye on these matters, but when we come down to the details of the Statement we have a certain number of reservations.
Is it the case that in competition policy we shall have a Green Paper on mergers and monopolies policy to accompany the Green Paper which the noble Lord announced on restrictive trade practices? He will recall that in 1978 and 1979 there were two Green Papers: one on mergers and monopolies and the other on restrictive trade practices. We very much hope that the Government will repeat that precedent and produce the evidence for their changes in competition policy, such as they are.
We welcome generally the proposed overhaul of the Restrictive Trade Practices Act. For a long time we have believed that outlawing restrictive trade practices was the right way to go. Indeed, the Director General of Fair Trading said that in very clear terms and we are glad that the Government have finally adopted that line.
Also on competition and merger policy, we shall support the prenotification principle because that was something that we recommended on the lines of the Hart-Scott-Rodino legislation in the United States. We should have liked to make it compulsory

1079
but we understand that there may be reasons under present UK practice where a voluntary practice, which is effectively compulsory, is right.
We also support with some qualification the ability of the Director General of Fair Trading to secure legally binding undertakings from parties to a merger. The qualification I would make is that I am not entirely certain—indeed, I am uncertain—that the Director General of Fair Trading has an office that is adequately staffed to carry the burden being laid on him at the moment and the increased burden that would be placed on him as a result of the White Paper.
On the general question of competition policy, I note the noble Lord's statement that mergers policy will continue to be based on the need to maintain competitive market conditions. I am not entirely certain what that means and therefore I have to wait to see what the White Paper says in spelling it out. However, I hope he recognises that a major concern of noble Lords on all sides of the House is that the public interest should be properly defined in competition policy. The public interest is defined in different manners in different pieces of legislation. The Monopolies and Mergers Commission has to be guided by what constitutes the public interest in the case of the Airports Act, which is one definition; the public interest in the case of industrial mergers and the Fair Trading Act, which is another definition; and the public interest as regards British Telecom and the telecom Act, which is another definition.
We were hoping very much that the competition policy review would clear these matters up once and for all. I hope the noble Lord will be able to assure me that there will be a Green Paper or at least some document which will set out the reasoning behind the Government's view that he has put forward in the Statement.
So far as concerns research and development. I wonder whether the noble Lord has really taken into account the low base from which we start. Again, we have to see whether the cessation of general schemes of single-company support for innovation would diminish our civil research and development. I have no doubt that the noble Lord, Lord Sherfield, who chaired your Lordships' committee on this subject. will have his word to say on that. For the moment we shall have to examine the implications.
It is when we come to regional policy that I think the distance between the two sides of this House is probably greatest. Why, in the Statement, does the noble Lord say that there is no reduction in the amount of money to be spent on regional policy? Is this another way of saying that there will be no increase in the amount of money to be spent on regional policy? Why is there no mention of the disadvantages of selective assistance as against RDGs? Selective assistance is unpredictable; the need has to be proved. Selective assistance is a subsidy to the profit and loss account rather than to capital. It therefore works straight through to the profit on the bottom line as opposed to reducing the cost of capital, and it is impossible for companies to budget because they simply do not know under the present
1080
system whether or not they will get such a discretionary allowance. If the noble Lord could help us on that it would be extremely useful.
Are the grants that are proposed in the Statement for smaller companies automatic? In other words, do they follow the principle of RDGs for companies with fewer than the number of employees the Minister specified? Are they automatic, because the automaticity of grants is something which industry, rightly or wrongly, has believed to be very valuable? Why are RDGs not good value for money? If the noble Lord had had time to attend our debate on regional policy before Christmas he would have heard a number of speakers from all sides of the House saying that the automaticity of these grants, which allowed industry to plan on that basis, was valued and that the RDG system was a valuable job creator.
What consultation have the Government had with industry over the abolition of regional development grants, and what reply have the Government made to Mr. John Banham, the Director General of the CBI, who is reported as saying at the annual dinner of the Welsh CBI that he believed it was extremely unwise to change a situation which was apparently working so well?
We shall look carefully at the White Paper. We are glad that the Government have come forward with it because anything which can improve the direction of the Department of Trade and Industry and give heart to the officials who work in the department will be welcomed. As for the effects, and our final view on this matter, the jury is still out.
Lord Taylor of Gryfe: My Lords, I too should like to express appreciation to the Secretary of State for his review this afternoon of his department's activities as contained in his Statement. I should also like to congratulate him on the incisiveness and enthusiasm with which he has tackled very serious problems in his department. From these Benches we welcome the approach of the Secretary of State in bringing the academic studies closer to the requirement of industry. We hope that that will be successful.
In addition, we very much welcome the Statement of the Secretary of State in relation to mergers policy. Anyone who has been engaged in mergers recently will recognise that long arguments and delays in decision making by the Monopolies and Mergers Commission can have an upsetting effect on industry in general, as well as creating uncertainties in the stock market.
I very much welcome the Minister's conversion to the importance of securing adequate competition. This does not quite coincide with the current policy of the Government in the creation of private monopolies. It would be interesting to hear from the Secretary of State how his enthusiasm for competition can be applied to the situation of the private monopolies of British Telecom, the forthcoming British Electricity, and other nationalised industries that are to be converted into private monopolies.
I welcome the desire to strengthen the Office of Fair Trading to ensure adequate competition rules. I

1081
would subscribe to the plea of the noble Lord, Lord Williams, that there should be a clearer definition of the public interest in judging mergers and changes in the structure of industry.That is a very uncertain area and leads to all kinds of difficulties—lobbying by private interests, lobbying of regional interests, and so on. I am sure that it would be helpful to the authorities concerned if there were a clearer definition in that rather difficult area. I am sure that the strengthening of the Office of Fair Trading will be welcomed. I am sure that Sir Gordon Borrie has earned the respect of industry and the country in general for the way that he has discharged his responsibilities. I suspect that the additional powers that he will have under the new arrangements will be very much welcomed and will be very sensibly exercised.
I turn now to a matter of deep concern to me personally, living as I do in the regions. That is the change in the regional policy The House will recall that the new regional policy—which was proposed to make some impact on the North-South divide—was introduced as late as November 1984. Three and half years is not a very long time to see the full implications of a new regional policy. Companies have to make decisions with regard to investment based on a regional policy that has some assumptions of continuity. Here we are, within three and a half years, having a new regional policy and the abolition of the regional development grants as they presently stand.
There is an assurance in the Statement that the amount of money to be dispensed in the regions will not be cut. We should keep in mind that the amount was £700 million in 1986–87, and was cut to £500 million in 1987–88. Scotland received a 50 per cent. cut in that period of the total regional allocation. We are therefore talking about maintaining what is at present a small. inadequate base. Like the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Elvel, perhaps I may simply state that while the Statement we have heard today was widely leaked at the weekend, we are not in a position to give the kind of detailed analysis that is important to those radical changes.
I should like to commend to the Minister a study that was made I believe by his department. That indicated that in the period 1960 to 1981, 784,000 new jobs were created by positive regional policy. Of these, 600,000 remained. I agree that one cannot create jobs by simply throwing money at people. But it would be sensible if we made a quiet and careful assessment of the implications of the existing regional strategy before we rejected it in favour of a policy which has not so far been justified.
Lord Young of Graffham: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Elvel, for his comments. Of course I am very much aware of the importance of morale in the Civil Service. The noble Lord may possibly recall that I spent five and a half years as a sort of civil servant immediately before entering Cabinet. I am convinced above all else about the need not only to have high morale in the Civil Service but to show the appreciation for the very real work that the Civil Service does in order to discharge the obligations of government.
1082
However, the noble Lord then raised some matters about competition policy. It is true that we shall have a Green Paper on restrictive trade practices. In that Green Paper I suspect that we shall be moving more towards European law which looks at the effects of agreements rather more than the legalism at the moment which considers wording of agreements only. We have pondered long on the merger proposals. We do not propose to have a Green Paper on the merger proposals. The noble Lord will in a few minutes' time be able to look at the White Paper. I am sure that through the usual channels he will take the opportunity of raising the matter so that we can discuss the White Paper in more detail. I accept the difficulty of relying solely upon my Statement at this moment. I hope that the Director-General of OFT will be adequately staffed for the increased activities he will be undertaking.
The noble Lord, Lord Williams, is on less secure ground when he talks about R&D. It appears from the figures that Government spending on civil R&D as a percentage of GDP is greater than the United States and Japan. Where we do not shine is in the amount of money which the private sector spends on R&D.
The main thrust of the change in programmes which the White Paper will outline is towards persuading companies to undertake steps which do not come naturally to them. It is, alas, not natural yet for companies to work with institutions—with universities and polytechnics. We shall be assisting that process. It is not natural yet for two companies to work together on collaborative research. For example, could an electronics company work with a textile company in finding new ways of producing computer-controlled textile machinery? We shall encourage that kind of venture. I believe that it is a sensible use of taxpayers' money to encourage research collaboration between British companies and French, German, Dutch or any of our European partners.
On regional spend, I wonder whether the noble Lord is correct in saying that industry values the automaticity of regional development grants so very highly. I suspect that we need to leave this issue in abeyance for a little while in order to see what industry has to say about it. My information is that industry did not say that its behaviour was moderated by regional development grant; it was quite happy to accept money that was offered by government. But if industry looks towards areas that could be improved it would be looking at those elements of non-price competitiveness. If this country went wrong in its manufacturing industries in the 1970s I suspect that it went wrong because it concentrated on price competitiveness to the exclusion of other factors, whereas countries such as Japan and others concentrated very heavily on non-price competitive items such as delivery, quality, after-sales service and design. Those are the areas where I believe that British industry could well be improved. I have been told by many large companies that an improvement in the quality of their component suppliers would be the best step forward to help them. That I believe is the way in which the new programmes of my department will go.

1083
I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Taylor of Gryfe, for the welcome he gave to the thrust of my Statement, if not my White Paper, on the way in which we shall be working together with institutions and the recognition of the strengthening of the position of the Director General of Fair Trading in merger control. If noble Lords read the White Paper I hope they will be satisfied with the changes we are proposing, which go further than my Statement.
The noble Lord, alas, does not welcome my attitude towards monopolies. He referred to BT. I should much rather be judged on the future than on the past. Let him see how the privatisation of electricity is structured and perhaps then he will see that I still have a belief in competition.
There is much to be questioned. The noble Lord is right to question regional policy. But there are many who say—I do not disagree with them—that the effect of the policy for the regions of all governments over some decades has been to establish a branch economy in many of them. What I hope the main change of our policies will achieve is to produce in the regions an industrial profile and structure that is similar around the country.
I had the great pleasure of going to Consett not many weeks ago. I had last been at Consett in 1981 shortly after the steel plant closed. When one employer went 3,500 jobs were lost. I went there just before Christmas and over 100 new employers and 3,500 new jobs have come into being in a great variety of different activities. The thrust of my department's policies is to ensure that existing businesses in the regions grow and multiply, that employment increases and that we see the establishment not of a branch economy but of a prosperous economy in all our regions.
3.30 p.m.
Lord Thorneycroft: My Lords, does the noble Lord appreciate the welcome that will come from many quarters for such a positive, constructive and undogmatic statement of strategy in relation to the co-operation and intervention of government in the affairs of industry and the hope that it may help to set the pattern for what clearly will be a market-led economy for many years to come?
Lord Young of Graffham: My Lords, I am very grateful indeed for the welcome given by my noble friend to the Statement.
Lord Glenamara: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that to me, and I imagine to many other people throughout the country, his Statement consists of a great many platitudes, a great deal of packing and a catalogue of things which are being done at present, all wrapping up the central, stark fact that regional development grants are being abolished—regional development grants which have brought tens of thousands of jobs to the regions of Britain? I am appalled and dismayed. It is a further demolition by the Government of the mechanism which has operated under successive governments to iron out the inequalities among the regions of this country. I am shocked at the Government.
Lord Young of Graffham: My Lords, I suspect that the noble Lord would be calmed if he read the White Paper or indeed a copy of my Statement. It consists of a great many matters other than regional policy. It is concerned with the growth of the economy of this country, for without the prosperity that a growing economy brings we cannot have the caring society which we should all like to have. I hope the noble Lord will recover from his shock when he reads the White Paper.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, in view of the immense importance and almost equal complexity of the Statement, will my noble friend arrange for an early debate in your Lordships' House upon it, it being particularly a matter on which so many noble Lords have valuable views and information to contribute? My noble friend is hesitating to give an answer, so I invite his attention to the convenient adjacency to him of the Leader of the House.
Lord Young of Gratfham: My Lords, I shall use whatever influence I still have with the Leader of the House to ensure that we have an early debate. It will of course be dealt with through the usual channels.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, notwithstanding what the noble Lord has said, is he aware that we are bound to feel very apprehensive about the effect of his policy on the regions and particularly upon Wales and Scotland? Will he say, for example, what is the future of the Welsh Development Agency and the Welsh Rural Development Board, which have played a major role in the Principality in easing the serious unemployment problem which has existed there for several years? Secondly, can he tell us at this stage about the transitional arrangements? For example, can he confirm that applications for schemes which are presently before his department will be treated under the existing rules? Will people be given an adequate moratorium to make their applications? Otherwise it will be extremely unfair.
Lord Young of Graffham: Yes, my Lords. I assure all noble Lords that the Bill which is being introduced in another place today will allow applications for regional development grant to be made up to and including 31st March this year so that plans may proceed. However, the payment out for that may be some years ahead, but applications may go in until 31st March this year, which should give adequate notice to all those contemplating investment under the old system.
The noble Lord will recognise that Wales has led the field in the reduction of unemployment over the last 17 or 18 months. I do not anticipate that there will be any reduction in the role of the Welsh Development Agency or the other agencies.
We are not reducing the amount we spend, but seeing whether we can spend it better, something which I am sure all in your Lordships' House will welcome. I believe that there is a case for the Government to determine to spend the money better before they go to the taxpayer to ask for more. What we are endeavouring to do is to improve the quality

1085
of our spend and the results of what we get for the money. That is what I believe my White Paper will do.
Lord Harmar-Nicholls: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that it will be necessary for us to read his White Paper before we can have a deep knowledge of what is likely to flow from it? Can he assure me that the legislation and the regulations which will follow will conform with the Treaty of Rome, or is it likely that some of his good ideas, which are the logical next step from what has been done so far, may be sabotaged by the Treaty of Rome; for example, the regional grant? is the movement away from that because it is considered right in the future development of this country's economy, or is it because in some way it is not acceptable under the terms of the treaty? I ask these questions because so many matters in the interests of this country—even the announcement yesterday to do with furnishings—somehow or other so often later appear to cut across a treaty which gives power of final decision to people outside this country?
Lord Young of Graffham: My Lords, the White Paper is based upon our assessment of what is required in the interests of the economy of the United Kingdom. Nevertheless we have taken steps to ensure that it does not conflict with the Treaty of Rome.
Lord Mason of Barnsley: My Lords, will the noble Lord explain to the House how he sees the regional policy changes effecting a quicker reduction in male unemployment levels in Yorkshire and the northern regions? Secondly, how does he answer the charge from large British companies that his regional policy is enabling foreign companies to come into this country aided by government grant, that British companies are unfairly in competition with them and that that will deter investment in the northern regions where it is required most? How does he answer that?
Lord Young of Graffham: My Lords, the noble Lord cannot possibly have it both ways. He cannot ask me how my policies will reduce male unemployment in the North and at the same time complain bitterly that regional selective assistance is allowing firms such as Nissan to come into the North-East to compete with other British manufacturers but at the same time giving jobs to male employees in the North.
What we need is a sense of balance. We alone cannot give up regional selective assistance. We alone cannot stand by and see these internationally mobile opportunities go to France, Holland, Belgium or Italy. My job is to ensure that we have fair competition, that we equal, no more, what other countries will do and that many of the new manufacturers who come into this country to bring welcome jobs do so on terms which are fair to the rest of British industry yet are attractive enough to bring them here and not overseas. I shall never win. We shall never satisfy all people. The moment we satisfy incoming new manufacturers, we upset our existing manufacturers. It is a difficult path but one that we shall try to accomplish.
1086
On the issue whether our policies will reduce unemployment in Yorkshire and the North, I am well aware of the enormous change in the pattern of industry that has occurred over the last decade. It is no good regretting it. We shall never again have a steel industry and a coal industry that supports as many jobs as they supported 25 years ago.
I take great comfort from the Consetts of this world that show that the sense of enterprise, drive and determination continues to exist in the northern region and in Yorkshire, as soon as other oportunities arise. We must make sure that they have these other opportunities.
Lord Mackie of Benshie: My Lords, following the question asked by the noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos, about regional agencies, it appears to me that the DTI will do many of the things which have been done for many years by the Highlands and Islands Development Board and the Scottish Development Agency. They will still assist and educate firms; they will assist them with marketing. I trust and hope that the noble Lord will be able to give us an assurance that the SDA and the HIDB will continue to use their expertise and put the new policies into effect in their area, instead of it being done by a centralised body, because they have been extremely successful in reducing the appalling conditions of unemployment in various areas of Scotland.
Lord Young of Graffham: My Lords, I always thought that the SDA was itself a centralised body in Scotland. I think that I have a certain degree of bravery but I am not brave enough to take on the combined lobby of the SDA and the HI DB. I confirm to the noble Lords opposite that those agencies will of course continue.
These consultancy programmes will be delivered by the private sector. We shall not have the spectacle of civil servants telling employers or businessmen and women how to run their businesses. We shall act as a facilitator to spread best practices, to ensure the best of design, marketing and exporting. One element that my Statement perhaps did not cover is that we shall be launching a consultancy initiative designed to help people get into exporting at home before they think of going overseas. I recall all too vividly how very much at sea I was in the middle 1960s when I first started to export and come across terms like bills of lading. I hope that we can provide that sort of information to potential exporters all over the country. This will not take away from the agencies which are so beloved in the regions. I hope that it will greatly strengthen and make more prosperous business throughout the country.
Lord Gladwyn: My Lords—
Lord Taylor of Blackburn: My Lords, I have been trying to speak; I do not want to interrupt Prayers tomorrow. This is not the time and the place to go into detail this afternoon because many things require a lot of consideration. However, I welcome the comment in the Statement about work opportunities for young people. This of course is not

1087
new. It went on years ago in Lancashire, but I am glad that the Secretary of State is looking at this again and giving young people an opportunity to gain some job experience while they are still at school. I think that this will be a great help to many young people.
When the Secretary of State is looking at this in more detail, will he discuss with his right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Education and Science the role of the careers master and mistress in schools in advising young people? I think that this is important. Again, when the Secretary of State refers to schools is he referring to all schools or is he just referring to the maintained schools sector?
Lord Young of Graffham: My Lords, I am very grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Taylor, for his unqualified undertaking not to interrupt Prayers tomorrow. I also happily agree with him that I follow Lancashire in everything except cricket. We shall work out these programmes to ensure that they apply as widely as possible within the school sector. I have had preliminary discussions with my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Education and Science, and we shall be working out the details of this. Of course it follows a long period, starting with the TVEI programme and other programmes which are designed to give young people more experience and a taste for the world of work. We shall be looking at those young people who are not caught by TVEI, who do not have present work experience, and who are not covered. It may well be that this programme will be offered outside Lancashire, but I am sure no-one in Lancashire will object.
Lord Gladwyn: My Lords, referring to the intervention of the noble Lord, Lord Harmar-Nicholls, is it not a fact that industrial development in the regions of this country is often materially assisted by substantial grants from the European Commission acting under the general authority of the Treaty of Rome?
Lord Young of Graffham: My Lords, not only does industry and commerce in the regions benefit from grants from the European Community, but we have assured your Lordships' House today that regional spend will not be reduced. I hope that all noble Lords take fully into account that at the end of this decade regional businesses will benefit by some £700 million per annum as a result of the unified business rate.
Lord Sefton of Garston: My Lords, may I ask the Secretary of State whether the remaining part of the regional policy of the Government still contains the assurance that part of the policy will be to move jobs from the more affluent areas to the less affluent areas, as has so often been stated by the government Benches? I take it from that that it will still remain the policy of the Government. What consideration have the Government given to the situation where the congestion and high costs in the South of England lead to a loss of competitiveness in the private sector? Will the Secretary of State give some really serious consideration to moving out of the South-East and so
1088
reduce the exorbitant costs of our civil service and move them to a less affluent area?
Lord Young of Graffham: My Lords, I am fully aware of what the noble Lord says. I was of course responsible for the Manpower Services Commission when it moved all its head office functions out of London towards Sheffield. Indeed, my White Paper today announces the moving of people from Victoria Street more towards the regions. The rules under which regional selective assistance is being administered have not changed since 1984. They take into account not only movement of jobs but also saving of jobs. That will not change. I believe we are seeing a welcome return of confidence in the regions as the South-East becomes so congested and so expensive that we are beginning to see many companies going further and further north in an effort to achieve better conditions. This is not the time for a full debate on this subject, which will go on very much longer.
Lord Sefton of Garston: My Lords—
The Lord Privy Seal (Lord Belstead): My Lords, we have been asked for a debate. The Secretary of State has said that he will use his influence through the usual channels to see whether we can have a debate. May we just take the supplementary question from the noble Lord, Lord Sefton, and perhaps call it a day?
Lord Sefton of Garston: My Lords, it is a simple supplementary. If we can transfer some of the government departments—not a few civil servants but whole government departments—to the north of this country, there may well be no need for regional aid.
Lord Young of Graffham: My Lords, I am not averse in the slightest to government departments or indeed your Lordships' House being transferred to the north of England; but I am also concerned that productive industry and commerce should be in the north of England as well.

Copyright, Designs and Patents Bill [H.L.]
3.50 p.m.
The Lord Chancellor (Lord Mackay of Clashfern): My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now again resolve itself into Committee on this Bill.
Moved, That the House do now again resolve itself into Committee.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The LORD ABERDARE in the Chair].
Clause 192 [Design right]:
Lord Howie of Troon Lord Howie of Troon moved Amendment No. 281VA:
Page 84, line 6, leave out subsection (1).
The noble Lord said: I hope that the Secretary of State will heed my plea that if the House of Lords is

1089
moved from London it should be moved to Edinburgh and not to the North of England.
I am sure that the Minister will be aware that in tabling this amendment I do not wish to remove subsection (1) from the Bill. I wish to give the Minister the opportunity of defining, for the benefit of the Committee, what it is that the Government mean by the word "design" and what, in other parts of the Bill, they mean by the word "designer". The words "design" and "designer" are now in vogue in the popular and quality press. However, those words cover a wide range of activity and I should like the Government to say which part of that wide range of activity is referred to in this part of the Bill. At an award ceremony at the Royal Society of Arts in November a noted broadcaster said:
"Design, said an eminent divine, turns chaos into order. Design, said a connoisseur, turns life into art. Design, said a man with a spanner, turns metal-hashing into engineering. That is the difficulty with design; it means different things to different people".
I agree with that speaker, although I should have put the matter in a different way. The word "design" has a wider meaning than is often thought in the popular press. There is design in the construction, architectural and engineering world. There is design in the area of industry, in the designing of products and in the area of decorative art. I am fairly sure that this part of the Bill does not refer to the whole of those areas. I am hoping that, before the end of the debate on the Bill, we shall have defined with precision which parts of those areas the Bill refers to.
According to the Bill, the design to which it refers deals with the shape or configuration of an artifact of some kind. The Bill goes on to exclude a number of areas of design from that definition. One can see what is excluded but one cannot yet see what is included. We are asked that design should not be that of a method of construction. That appears to be clear, unless one asks the question: would a bridge by the Swiss builder, Robert Maillart, be included? The concept of a bridge by Maillart is total and depends wholly on the shape and configuration of the bridge. Although Maillart was an engineer in prestressed concrete, the essence of the design was not prestressed concrete, which is a method, but the concept of the bridge as a whole. I am fairly sure that the Bill is not intended to include such a bridge. However, it is not clear to me that the Bill excludes such a structure.
How would Gothic architecture feature under the Bill? For example, this canopy in the Chamber is clearly a piece of design and decorative work and it is a piece of construction of some kind. It is a whole. The shape and configuration of the canopy are part and parcel of the design but the structure is a lesser part. The decorative features, which are not on the surface but are integral with the structure of the canopy, are also part and parcel of the design. How does that canopy fare under the Bill? I suspect that the Government do not intend to include such items as the canopy in the Bill, but it is not clear to me that they are excluded.
The same is true of these stained glass windows. One knows that in the nature of things a stained glass window is a decorative artifact. One can see that the decoration in the painted parts is applied to the
1090
surface of the artifact and would be excluded from the Bill. The stained glass is stained through and through, and the staining is part and parcel of the structure. Is the design and manufacture of stained glass included in the Bill?
There is a wide range of such items which raise questions such as those I have asked, and I do not wish to list them in any detail. It is my belief that, in talking of "design", the Government mean either industrial or product design. If that is the Government's intention, I believe that that should be made clear in the Bill. It will be a simple matter for the Minister to make that clear during the course of the debate, but one would be on firmer ground if it were made clear in the Bill.
It would be a grave disservice to the language and to design if the Bill were left loose, as I believe it to be, so that it actually applies to only a part of design while apparently applying to the whole of design. If it applies only to part, that part should be defined in the Bill and should be made clear. I beg to move.
Lord Denning: While I do not support the amendment to its fullest state, it gives an opportunity for the Committee to look at the objectives of this part of the Bill. It introduces into our law for the first time a design right similar to a copyright. The matter arises from the important British Leyland case which was heard in the House of Lords, sitting judicially. All the Law Lords appealed to Parliament to intervene to correct what was already shown to he wrong in our law.
British Leyland produce many motor cars. In the course of time some of the parts wore out and spare parts had to be made. They were made by the Armstrong company, which made spare parts only to replace those which had worn out. The business in spare parts was so large that it covered £800 million a year. British Leyland brought an action in the courts stating that the spare parts manufacturers were infringing the copyright in the drawings of British Leyland from which they made their motor cars.
In fact, Armstrong's did not possess any of the drawings and had not copied them. The company had, for example, possession of an exhaust pipe from a British Leyland motor car and it copied that. The important point is that the House of Lords felt that it was forced to hold that that was an infringement of British Leyland's copyright in the original drawing although Armstrong's had not seen those drawings at all. It simply copied the exhaust pipe or whatever it may be. That would mean, if carried to its full extent, that there would be copyright for 50 years or more in an exhaust pipe. The drawing had not been seen by Armstrong's; it had only seen the exhaust pipe. However, as a result of the House of Lords decision, there was copyright for British Leyland, in effect, in the exhaust pipe for 50 years or more. The only exception made to that was that spare parts are a feature by themselves, although anything else might be an infringement of copyright. This was most important to the people who bought the cars; a spare parts manufacturer could go on doing it regardless.
That was the House of Lords' decision and all noble Lords appealed to Parliament to put it right. That is

1091
why, instead of copyright in the drawings being the important factor, instead of copyright in the spare part or the exhaust pipe, there should be a design right in the shape or configuration. That is what we now have to deal with in the shape of the configuration of some article, whatever it is. There is to be a design right, but that design right is not to last for 50 years or more like copyright but for 15 years. The White Paper said it should last for only 10 years. The design right is not to last, like copyright, for 50 years but for only 10 years and then for people who wish to make the spare parts there is to be compulsory licensing after five years.
That is the outline of the problem. There has been great controversy about it in industry. The Government are tackling it by bringing in this "design right", which is a property right which subsists in accordance with this part in an original design. Subsection (2) states:
"'Design' means the design of any aspect of the shape or configuration (whether internal or external) of the whole or part of an article".
I have said that in order to show how important it is, as my noble friend Lord Howie said, that we should have our minds clear. We are dealing with a new subject matter altogether. We are dealing with "design right" in this Bill for the first time in our law and therefore we should make it clear what a design is under our law in the future.
4 p.m.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Howie of Troon, for introducing this amendment. It affords a most important opportunity for discussion of a serious apparent deficiency in the drafting of Clauses 192 to 242 of the Bill. It affects Amendment No. 289B, which stands in my name. The apparent deficiency in the drafting is concerned exclusively with the design right, as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Denning, just said. The new right is that there is not, and perhaps cannot be, any definition or yardstick which deals with how similar a design has to be in order to infringe. Such a provision as to similarity is, one would have thought, a fundamental requirement when one creates a new right such as this.
The problem, as I see it—and I may be wrong about it—is that the set of clauses as they stand are likely to be interpreted by the courts as creating a test of infringement which is far wider than the current test which the courts apply to infringement of copyright in engineering drawings.
Clause 192 defines the nature of the design right and Clause 205—and it is difficult to discuss one without the other because they interact—confers the exclusive right to apply the design. As the set of legislation stands on these two clauses, this could lead to the conclusion that the shape of the part or parts concerned must be substantially identical for there to be an infringement. Although reproduction may involve the making of a new design—this is under Clause 205—that opens the door wide as regards almost any degree of similarity in the overall shape of an article or in the general shape of any part or parts for the purpose of the infringement.
1092
In the result, if this analysis is correct or anywhere near correct—and I do not know whether it is—I should be interested to know not only what the Committee thinks about this but also what the Minister has to say.
Lord Williams of Elvel: As the noble and learned Lord, Lord Denning, the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway, and my noble friend Lord Howie said, we are embarking on a new part of the Bill. The amendment moved by my noble friend gives us an opportunity to discuss exactly what "design right" means. Both the noble and learned Lord and the noble Lord cast some doubt on whether the definitions of "design right" and what it entails were entirely clear in the minds of the Committee or, indeed, in the mind of the Government.
It is certain that until 1968, as I understand it, artistic copyright was assumed to have no role in industrial design—except in so far as the copyright of drawings was concerned. The Registered Designs Act 1949 gave the monopoly protection to designs if they were registered and if they were novel. However, in 1968 Parliament passed the Design Copyright Act 1968, which introduced the notion of copyright protection for a short term of 15 years to industrial products, but industrial products with aesthetic properties. The intention then was to cover jewellery, toys and other articles of that nature. Nevertheless, amending the Copyright Act 1956 gave protection for designs with what is known as "eye appeal". These designs now have protection either through registration under the Registered Designs Act 1949 or through design copyright. Protection for designs without eye appeal seems to be causing many problems and caused a lot of problems in the case recounted by the noble and learned Lord. Lord Denning; namely, Leyland v. Armstrong. The decision which was arrived at, as the noble and learned Lord quite rightly said, amounted to an appeal to Parliament to intervene to clarify what Parliament had intended by this succession of legislation which to their Lordships in Judicial Committee appeared to have a good deal of doubt attached to it.
The whole concept of design right developed from that case and the problem that we have with this is that the Government have taken a particular case and gone on from there to make a general rule about design right. When one extends the right, which may be appropriate in the case of car spare parts, to other spare parts or other articles, at that point one finds problems.
It was the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hailsham, at an earlier stage of the Committee, who said that it was very much a matter of policy whether spare parts should be protected. In general terms we take the view that spare parts should be protected in some form or other. It is a question of protecting employment. We are impressed by the arguments which have been put forward by manufacturers and we are particularly impressed by the arguments which have been put forward by Westland Helicopters. We are not convinced that it is wholly in the interests of the consumer that there should be a completely free market, because safety plays a great role in automobile spare parts.

1093
It will be elaborated as we go through the amendments, but we generally take the view that there should be some form of protection. Nevertheless we are doubtful about the creation of a new right such as this, even if the drafting were clear and even if the questions put by the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway, are satisfactorily answered by the Government. We are not entirely convinced that such a new right is necessary.
We wonder whether it would not be appropriate simply to extend the provisions of the Design Copyright Act 1968 and to align them with the provisions of the Registered Designs Act. In other words by this mechanism we should achieve copyright protection for those designs with or without eye appeal, either through registration under the Registered Designs Act or through the Design Copyright Act. We argue that if the Government took that route the period of protection, which is 15 years' maximum protection, offered by the Registered Designs Act should apply to design copyright. We have quite a simple arrangement whereby there are registered and unregistered designs, but the general law of copyright as expressed in Part I of this Bill would apply to the unregistered designs. That would have the advantage of giving those unregistered designs international protection, which I believe is not given under the design right in Part III of this Bill.
It may be that our thinking is wholly incorrect. It may be that we have got hold of the wrong end of the stick. I am looking to the Minister to explain exactly what is the Government's thinking. I join with other noble Lords in thanking the noble Lord, Lord Howie, for moving this amendment, because it has given us a chance to argue the essential nature of this Part of the Bill.
Lord Mottistone: As you know, I have been discussing this matter with the CBI for some time and now that I am able to look at it closely I wonder whether the Government are right to go ahead with Parts Ill and IV. I agree with much of what the noble Lord, Lord Williams, has been saying. I wonder whether they should be reconsidered not within this Bill at all but as separate legislation which could take the form of using the existing legislation on the lines that the noble Lord, Lord Williams, has suggested.
The fact is that, whereas the department gave the CBI and other interested parties ample time to discuss the copyright part of this Bill, when it was raised in relation to Clauses 51, 52 and 53 and it was thought necessary for them also to discuss the design right part of the Bill, the interested parties were told that it was not quite ready but certainly discussions would take place before the Bill was presented to Parliament. In fact that never happened, so there have never been preliminary discussions with industrial representatives on this part of the Bill.
Furthermore, it seems to those who understand these issues that this part of the Bill has been written almost exclusively to deal with the question of motor manufacturers' spare parts as described to us by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Denning. So far as the report of the Monopolies and Mergers Commission on the Ford body panels investigation is concerned,
1094
that is another aspect and it does not take into account other types of industrial design.
I shall be mentioning examples in connection with another amendment of my own which will come later. I really support those who ask whether it is wise to go ahead with this part of the Bill now when it has not been properly discussed. The experts all feel that it is biased to one particular example which happens to have come before the courts during the past few years. Would it not be wiser to leave this out and to legislate on the matter later?
Alternatively, because it has not been properly discussed, another possibility might be to have amendments at the next stage of the Bill which would turn a great deal of this into enabling legislation. The details can then be put into secondary legislation at a later date. That is another possibility. As it stands at the moment it is most unsatisfactory.
4.15 p.m.
Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone: As the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Elvel, said, I raised this issue at an earlier stage of the discussion and therefore I will not take the Committee back to what I said then.
There is obviously a problem of policy to be decided. Speaking simply to the point upon which my noble friend has just spoken, I think the Government are right to go ahead with the general principles and without prejudice to any other amendments which may be discussed in this Committee.
My reason is as follows. The Leyland case to which my noble and learned friend Lord Denning referred, proceeded on a very artificial basis. The case depended upon whether copying a peculiar exhaust system which could be applied to a Leyland vehicle was a breach of copyright. As a statement of opinion which I express humbly because I am not an expert, I suggest that this is a very artificial way in which to approach the reproduction of a three-dimensional object. The breach of copyright depended upon the necessity to copy engineers' drawings on which the three-dimensional object was made and which the copier had never seen.
The idea that one can base a sensible future for this kind of problem on an artificial approach necessitated by the way in which copyright legislation has developed is false. Perhaps owing to an omission in his speech, my noble and learned friend may have created a false impression about the outcome of the case. It is true that the House of Lords decided that, on the existing legislation, the three-dimensional object which the spare parts manufacturer had produced was a breach of the copyright in the engineering drawings because they were a work of art. My noble and learned friend explained that very lucidly. However, the House of Lords decided as a matter of policy that the right of the car owner to get cheaply spare parts of perfectly ordinary manufactured objects—for example, an exhaust— overrode the breach of copyright.
This is a very roundabout way in which to reach a perfectly proper result. I do not myself see how the Government could have tackled the problem without doing something of the kind that they have sought to do in Part III. I am not at this stage trying to argue

1095
whether subsequent amendments proposed to Part III may or may not be improvements. I do not wish to beg that question at all. I should be sorry if it were the view of this Committee that the Government could not go ahead with Part III by creating, first of all, the design right as a new right superseding the old and artificial method of approaching this matter— that is, by way of copyright. Secondly, whatever discussions had taken place between industry and the Government, which is not a matter with which I am acquainted. I should have thought that subsections (3) and (4) of Clause 192 provide, at any rate prima facie, adequate protection for the car owner. If I am wrong about that, perhaps the Government have gone further than they should in protecting the owner of the design right. No doubt that will emerge in the debates which we shall hold subsequently upon this part of the Bill. In the meantime, my conclusion is that the Government have set about a very difficult problem in a workmanlike way. I should be sorry if this approach were abandoned.
Lord Lucas of Chilworth: I hope that the Government will resist the invitation offered to them by my noble friend Lord Mottistone to take this part of the Bill away. The Leyland v. Armstrong case and also the European Commission case against the Ford Motor Company have highlighted the difficulty in which some people find themselves. The fact that the debate this afternoon has concentrated on motor car parts underlines exactly what I have said. If there is an over-emphasis on the components parts element in this part of the Bill—although I do not believe that is so—that could be dealt with as we go along. Indeed, there are amendments down so to do. I should much prefer to proceed along the lines that are set down in the Bill as we have it, to make amendments to the Government's current proposals in the Bill, and to see where we go from there.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: The question is, as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hailsham, expressed it. whether the Government have gone too far in protecting the design right. That is the core of the subsequent amendment which stands in my name, Amendment No. 289B. I should have thought it wholly correct that the new right should be created, because the artificiality of the route by which this was dealt with by your Lordships' Appellate Committee cannot be satisfactory on any showing.
If the Government have gone too far in protecting the design right, that could have a very damaging effect on British industry, as tending to create a monopoly, even of ideas. Therefore my hope would be that we may amend the Bill in Committee or at subsequent stages so as to ensure that there is no hint of overprotection.
Lord Monkswell: I was not going to contribute to this section of the debate, but I have been forced to my feet because earlier speakers have suggested that design right protection is too strong rather than the other way round. It is my contention that the design right protection is in fact too weak for the original manufacturer. Be that as it may, we shall obviously come to that sort of detail in the discussion of
1096
subsequent amendments. It seems to me that intellectual property rights form the thread running through this Bill as a whole and that one of the key problems with this section is that it departs too far from the basic premise of the Bill and gets too bogged down in what one might describe as the pragmatic government response to particular legal situations which have occurred over the last few years. In our deliberations on subsequent amendments in this section I hope we shall try to bear in mind the basic philosophical object of the Bill—that is, to provide some protection for the intellectual property rights of the thinkers and intellects of our nation.
Lord Beaverbrook: First of all, I think I should say to my noble friend Lord Mottistone that I am not going to offer to withdraw this part of the Bill, because I believe there are very good reasons for retaining it.
The justification for having design right is in essence very simple. Expense, labour and skill are needed to produce designs, even where the design does not merit a patent, and we believe that some protection should be given to encourage investment in design effort. However, it is important to strike the right balance: on the one hand the protection must be sufficient to act as an incentive to innovation but on the other hand it must not act to stifle competition or prevent the wider use of technology.
It has been of concern to many that part of the Copyright Act 1956 has strayed from its traditional function of protecting literary and artistic works into the area of industrial articles. Surely, no one could disagree that protection for industrial designs lasting for the life of the designer plus 50 years is excessive when those designs which have truly inventive qualities can be protected for a maximum of 20 years under the patent system.
I would not wish to anticipate the debates that will take place on later parts of this clause and, indeed, on the subsequent clauses, but what I will say is that we believe this new regime for designs—"design right"—will provide a level of protection for those who invest in design which is in proportion to that provided for other forms of intellectual property. At the same time, however, we have been very careful to ensure that competition is not unduly restricted.
I have no illusions that there will he universal agreement on this issue. There certainly never has been over the last 10 years. Nevertheless, we have to strike the balance between the need to protect designers and the need to ensure that competition is not stifled. I have no doubt that some will say we are not offering enough protection; others will say we are offering too much. I would venture to say that perhaps on that basis we are beginning to strike a reasonable balance.
I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Howie of Troon, for introducing this first debate on this section of the Bill. The noble Lord has asked who is the designer. He is the person who contributes skill and effort to the creation of the design. This will be well understood by the courts since the concepts correspond to those involved when considering authorship in copyright. I have already written to the noble Lord, Lord Howie, on this, following the

1097
earlier debates on copyright. I have placed a copy of that letter in the Library. I do not think I can add any more than that. I do not think that the Bill should attempt a definition of the word "designer" any more than it should define the word "author" any further.
As to the question of what is a design, this is defined in subsection (2) of Clause 192. It is the design of any aspect of the shape or configuration of any article. It is a very broad concept in one respect—that is, it applies to any article. In other respects it is quite narrow. It does not include mere decoration or methods of construction. I should have thought that this was quite clear, but we will consider the noble Lord's remarks so far as they relate to large fixed structures such as a bridge that he mentioned.
It is certainly not the Government's intention to be unduly limitative in protecting designs. We will therefore consider the matter from that perspective.
Turning to the first intervention made by my noble friend Lord Campbell of Alloway, I say to him with great respect that perhaps this is not the point at which we should debate infringement. We are considering the definition of a design. I shall have much more to say about infringement when we come to consider my noble friend's Amendment No. 289B, and I wonder whether we could leave detailed discussion until that point.
I note the comments made by the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Elvel, that certain spare parts deserve protection. This is something to which I shall return when we discuss the exceptions to design right. As to his suggestion that the correct course would be to align design copyright with registered design right, we see difficulties with this. One is that design copyright depends on there being a copyright work such as a drawing in the first place. Many designs originate as prototypes and would not therefore attract design copyright.
The noble Lord suggested that the design copyright route would lead to protection overseas for United Kingdom designs, but I do not think that this would be the case. The position overseas is dependent on the relevant national law, and in general most copyright laws overseas do not protect the kind of designs with which we are concerned here.
Turning to the comments of my noble friend Lord Mottistone, he suggested that there had been insufficient consultation on design right. The basic proposal was, however, made by the Government in April 1986, and the modifications that have been made since are the result of extensive discussions and consultations with many sectors of industry.
I hope that I have managed to answer the points made in this interesting short debate at the beginning of our discussions today, and I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Howie of Troon, is satisfied with this. He has already said that he does not intend to pursue the amendment itself, but I hope I have managed to set out the Government's view at this early stage.
4.30 p.m.
Lord Howie of Troon: It is true that the Minister wrote to me after our debates earlier on the Bill. I hope that he does not assume from the fact that I have not yet written to him in reply that I found his
1098
letter satisfactory, for I did not any more than I found his reply today wholly satisfactory.
I should say first in respect of my noble friend's comments that it is no part of my case that the design right is too strong. I do not intend to argue that in any way. I merely wish to know to whom and to what it applies. I am still not certain of that. The nearest I got to a reply to my questions was that the courts would sort this out in some way later on. That is a reply we have had several times in our earlier debates and hear fairly often in this Chamber. It is a reply which I do not always find satisfactory. If it were wholly satisfactory and the courts were able to do that sort of thing properly, there would be no need for courts of appeal or for Law Lords to vote three to two on their final decision. I am not wholly sure that leaving things to the courts is the best way of going about our affairs.
Subsection (1) in the clause merely refers to "an original design", which as I tried to show in my opening remarks could be almost anything, although subsection (2) refers to "an article", and "an article" might limit the definition rather more than I was arguing. I instanced three separate examples of objects which are designed: a specific kind of bridge; an artefact similar to that canopy there over the Throne; or a stained glass window similar to those above our heads. They covered a wide range of possible designs.
However, it seemed clear from the Minister's remarks and from the manner in which the Bill was interpreted by other noble Lords that it was really aiming at such things as motor car spare parts and other such production items. That seemed to me to be a reasonable interpretation of Part III of the Bill. It would therefore be perfectly sensible to say that in Part Ill of the Bill, not merely that it referred to "an original design" but—and I make no attempt to draft the words—that it referred to an original design in the area in which it is intended to refer; that is, industrial artefacts, products which are made such as motor car spare parts and I dare say torches and torch batteries and other things of that sort. I imagine that is what the Government have in mind.
I do not want to pursue this matter further. I was greatly tempted by the remarks of my noble friend Lord Williams and the noble Lord, Lord Mottistone, because they struck a chord which has been in my mind from the beginning of our debates on this Bill; namely, that it is a compendium of several Bills, and Part III could easily be a separate Bill.
I do not want to press this amendment now. My noble friend and the noble Lord opposite suggested that it should be taken out of the Bill and pursued elsewhere. I hope that these thoughts will be taken into account by the Government. In the light of that hope, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Monkswell Lord Monkswell moved Amendment No. 281W:
Page 84, line 8, leave out from first ("the") to end of line 10 and insert ("description of an article or part of an article which enables that article or part thereof to be made.")
The noble Lord said: This amendment seeks to provide a clear definition of "design". In the context

1099
of the Bill "design" should surely be the description of an article which enables that article to be made. In fact the Government have already conceded this in Clause 205 where the phrase,
"by making articles to that design",
appears.
One of the problems we are faced with in this part of the Bill—and it has been alluded to already—is its all-encompassing nature. My noble friend Lord Howie of Troon mentioned three particular examples but they were all fixed structures. I suggest that there is another range from, for instance, haute couture, the design of high fashion articles of clothing, to the design of sophisticated aero engines. They could he described as movable items.
As an engineer I am concerned that Parliament may enshrine in law the dangerous concept that design is just a matter of shape or form. While I concede that for many articles the shape or configuration is the most important aspect, we must be aware that most of the best of modern British design uses the latest technology to its limits. Such designs may require sophisticated materials, methods of manufacture and surface treatments as well as shape and configuration to enable the article to he made.
We must always have an overriding concern for public safety. If the Committee will permit me I should like to give one example. Modern agricultural rotary mowers use blades attached to a rotating disc to cut grass and hay. As the discs rotate, the cutting blades attain very high speeds. If a blade were to break it would fly off with the energy of a rifle bullet. To digress, when these machines were being developed and the implications of blade failure were realised I wondered whether we could sell the idea to the Ministry of Defence, but the trouble is that it is a rather hit or miss operation as to when the blade is going to fail, and it would not be terribly effective.
During development work on these machines tests were conducted to determine the best design of blade. If I say that the test rig was surrounded by bales of straw, those bales of straw were then surrounded by steel planks, the whole apparatus was enclosed in a brick built building and then the test was conducted by remote control with nobody allowed in the building, the Committee will have some idea of the inherently dangerous nature of these machines.
It is sad to report that some years ago a learner driver undergoing instruction on a country road was killed outright by one of these blades, which parted company with a machine working in a nearby field. I can assure the Committee that if blades of the correct design are used these machines do not pose a threat to the public. However, all the design characteristics need to be met. I am informed by one manufacturer that a component supplier was found to be supplying good blades to it but was supplying blades to the after market on which it had omitted to complete a vital heat treatment operation, rendering them very liable to failure. The original manufacturer took immediate steps to ensure that the practice ceased forthwith. However, I am not so sure that if the Bill were passed
1100
unamended such protection could be afforded to the public in future.
The aspect of design that is merely shape or configuration is rather like the synopsis or outline of a literary work. In some cases that may be the best aspect. However, while we would not restrict copyright to the synopsis of an author's work, we should not restrict design rights just to shape but include other essential aspects of design. I beg to move.
Lord Denning: This amendment is far too wide in going merely on the description. I much prefer the original definition, with this qualification. We do not have the definition of an "article". It does not include a bridge and does not include a house. I would look upon "article" as chattels at the moment; not real property such as bridges and houses. If you get to chattels, it does not include a chair and does not include a clock, a watch or whatever it may be. The word "article" is not defined. That is another reason for rejecting the amendment but also a reason for saying that we must look carefully at each part of the Bill as it goes through.
Lord Morton of Shuna: In spite of what the noble and learned Lord, Lord Denning, has said, I hope that the Government will consider the amendment with some care. To confine the definition to the shape or configuration appears to leave out matters which, as a totally non-technical person, I should have thought were important in the design; matters such as the hardness of the metal to be used, heat treatment or various other matters of consistency which might well be crucial parts of the design. If we are dealing here with industrial articles in a general sense, somebody who has produced something that involves a special form of making is entitled to that design right even if it does not make any difference in the shape but, for example, there is a difference in the consistency.
4.45 p.m.
Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone: I share the view of my noble and learned friend on the Cross-Benches that the amendment is not an improvement on the draft in the Bill. The underlying fallacy in the case of the noble Lord, Lord Monkswell, is that an element of consumer protection can be introduced in a clause that is designed to protect intellectual property. The sharp blades in a rotary mower are dangerous and there are various provisions both in the law of tort and in the criminal law which protect people or ought to protect people or are designed intentionally to protect people from the dangerous construction or design of materials. But you cannot use a property right in the designer as a means of achieving that object.
I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Morton of Shuna, that it is difficult to make a comprehensive definition of the word "design". It must cover quite a variety of different things but it is after all a dictionary word. One starts off, I hope, with the belief that the courts can interpret dictionary English. If they cannot they should not be in business at all. In so far as the draft Bill attempts the job, at the moment

1101
I am not persuaded that it is not doing as well as it is possible for the English language to do. Simply to refer, as does the first amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Monkswell, to the description of an article or part of an article is totally inept to describe what the word in the dictionary would actually mean. Design is far different from the description of an article or part of an article. It is something other than the mere description. Therefore I should have thought that the amendment was not apt to produce the result for which it was intended.
Lord Howie of Troon: I would go a considerable part of the way with the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hailsham, in his reference to the dictionary and so on. I am not sure that he is right in his reference to description. I am quite sure that what my noble friend had in mind was something in the nature of a specification. A specification is a detailed and technical description. It is not a mere outline reference to the appearance of the article. The specification is, if not the whole design, at any rate a part of it. For that reason I think there is more to my noble friend's amendment than some Members of the Committee seem to think.
Lord Beaverbrook: The point here essentially is what should design right protect. As drafted, the Bill covers shape and configuration and in this respect it is an archetypal design right. It protects the way things look and not what they are made of or how they work.
The amendment on the other hand would extend the coverage of design right to include any characteristics of an article. Indeed, we have found it extremely difficult to think of anything that the amendment would not cover. The only limitation is that an article must be described in such a way that it can be made; and here there are echoes of patent law. Section 14(3) of the 1977 Patents Act states that:
"The specification of an application shall disclose the invention in a manner which is clear enough and complete enough for the invention to be performed by a person skilled in the art".
There is a considerable overlap between this and the noble Lord's amendment. In a very real sense the amendment would produce a second patent system. It would certainly not be a design right in the accepted sense. It would result in practically every aspect of every manufactured article being protected. I believe that that goes too far. It is one thing to protect the appearance of a product 'and quite another to protect every feature, every idea, every conceivable aspect of a product. Indeed, as we shall shortly he discussing, we think it is right to limit the extent of the design right provided by the Bill in cases where there are design constraints. As my noble friend the Secretary of State said at Second Reading:
"Those with ideas deserve a fair reward for their labours but they cannot expect to be completely sheltered from the real world. This would stifle rather than stimulate creativity".—[official Report, 12/11/87; col. 1476.]
I agree with my noble and learned friend Lord Hailsham that safety standards are a matter for consumer protection legislation and not for intellectual property legislation. We think that the amendment would be over-protective and would stifle rather than stimulate creativity.
Lord Howie of Troon: The Minister seems to underline the fears of my noble friend Lord Monkswell in suggesting that the design right applies only to the shape or configuration of an item or article. Indeed, that is right in the context of the Bill. The fear of my noble friend is that, by considering design solely in the context of the Bill, we may be saying something about design or designers as a whole. He would argue, as I would, that the design of an engineering article contains a great deal more than its configuration or shape. It contains the means of application of engineering science and mathematics to determine the dimension and size of the material itself. While these in turn determine the shape, I suppose, they are not aesthetic matters but engineering matters. My noble friend's fear, which I share, is that if one designs in this way one limits the notion of the designer to a narrow group of persons, whereas designs proper embrace a wide range of persons, some of whom come from the art schools and some from the engineering colleges and universities. That is the blurring of design that both I and, I think, my noble friend see in the Bill. I think that it needs more thought and definition than the Government have given it. There is no reason why the Government should not limit the provisions of the Bill to a narrow area of design, but they should make clear that it is no more than a narrow area of design that is referred to in the Bill.
Lord Monkswell: I welcome the support given to the amendment by my noble friends.
I thank the noble Lord, Lord Howie of Troon, for his interpretation of what I think, which is of great assistance! I should point out that he was almost 100 per cent. correct in what he said.
I wish to touch on what the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hailsham, said, about there being other ways of protecting the consumer. I gave one example of a case in which consumers' rights were severely curtailed. I can think of numerous others where the laws of consumer protection render effectively no protection to the person at the receiving end. As a society we need to be aware that there are ways in which the consumer, the public, can be damaged. It is not enough to say that a whole range of consumer and public protection laws exists. One must look at how the laws operate. Where there is a need, as I feel that there is in this instance, to take action in other ways to protect the consumer and public as suggested in the amendment, we should take advantage of them.
The Minister suggested that my projected definition of design was too wide-ranging. We come back to the original question: what do we mean by design right protection and what sort of articles do we seek to protect against copying? Here I return to the comment of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hailsham. He said that it is easy to obtain a definition of design from a dictionary. As it happens, I do not have it written in front of me, but any dictionary will provide a definition. It should be borne in mind that, in the context of the Bill, we are discussing not the substance of design but the copying of articles made to a design, which may be slightly different.

1103
Having noted the Minister's response, I reserve my position on the amendment. I hope that the Government will consider further what has been said in the debate. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Nugent of Guildford): If Amendment No. 281X is agreed to, I shall not be able to call Amendment No. 282.
Lord Monkswell Lord Monkswell moved Amendment No. 281X:
Page 84, line 11, leave out subsection (3).
The noble Lord said: Subsection (3) of Clause 192 restricts design right in four ways. Those aspects of design that define method of manufacture, fit, form or surface finish on the face of the Bill could not be held to be part of a design right. These are some of the most essential elements in design and to exempt them from protection renders the concept of design right almost meaningless.
Although I do not wish to digress into a Second Reading speech perhaps I may say this. Britain as a manufacturing nation is at the crossroads. Already we import approximately half our requirement for manufactured items. We are faced with two choices. Either we can succumb to more imports and thus subsequently give assistance to companies that can make a fast buck from supplying spare parts to imported goods; or we can decide to give some measure of protection to the intellectual property rights of British original designers and manufacturers. It is my contention that we should support those designers who by their intellectual efforts will provide for our future prosperity.
Paragraph (a) deals with the method of manufacture. We have discussed the question of heat treatment in the example that I quoted earlier so I shall not elaborate on that. Paragraph (b) refers to the fit of one article with another. I had some initial doubts about deleting subsection (3) as it appears to limit the fitting of accessories as well as spurious spare parts. However, given the sophistication of modern designers, I think that it would be right to delete it.
Let us take the example of an earthmoving machine, an excavator. The owner may wish to fit some special attachment to convert it to a machine that is capable of handling bales of hay, which can weigh over one tonne. However, the conversion may overload the machine and give rise to failure and to safety problems not only for the operator but for bystanders. The machine designer, who has calculated all the stresses and strains on the structure and determined the reliability and strength of different components, should surely have some control over how the machine that he has designed will be modified. Design right protection would be a good mechanism for that. Paragraph (c) would exempt form or shape for appearance from protection. This is obviously geared to give the parasitical car body panel makers unrestricted license. The difficult word here is "appearance". We shall see conflict here because what may be "appearance" to one person may be structural
1104
integrity to another. If I say, for example, that the wing of a Mini is part of the structure of the chassis one can understand the implication. There was a case where plastic wings for Minis that were available some 10, 15 or 20 years ago had to be taken off the market because they were deemed to be unsafe in terms of structural integrity.
Not only do modern manufacturers liaise closely with the motor insurance industry to ensure relatively easy and cheap replacement of body panels, but sophisticated materials, methods of manufacturing and construction are also used to reduce weight while maintaining structural integrity. The investment committed by original equipment manufacturers surely deserves some reward. Design right protection will be useful to protect the consumer.
I turn to paragraph (d). That relates to decoration applied to the surface. Again, we are in a dilemma because one person's decorative finish may be the designer's functional necessity. I can think of at least one machine with five different types of surface finish, all of which might be construed by a lay person to be decorative, when from the designer's point of view none of them is. Each has a distinct and discrete functional use. Extensive development, testing and capital outlay will be involved to provide those functions. I see no reason for including that as a restriction to design right.
I should like to say a few words about manufacturing industry in this country. There are suppliers of complete articles—the original equipment manufacturers—who depend on suppliers in the trade. Some of those suppliers will make items that the original equipment manufacturer has designed while others will supply items that they have designed. All of those organisations' activities are essential to the industry. Some component manufacturers, and all of the original equipment manufacturers, invest in design. That is an expensive activity which includes the necessary development and testing facilities. Design is essential because of the changing world in which we live.
New materials, new manufacturing techniques, new pressures by society, and the product of our own legislative activities, all create the need for new designs. It is surely right that this essentially intellectual activity should be accorded a degree of protection.
When researching the subject, I found that there was no statutory obligation on manufacturers to supply spare parts. This is an appalling state of affairs from the consumer's point of view until one realises that all reputable manufacturers supply spare parts. That involves them in warehousing, distribution systems and the associated costs. Those costs must be met by the consumer. There is no benefit to the consumer if the original equipment manufacturer has to drive up the price of his original product and his slow-moving spare parts because he has lost the market for the fast-moving parts to suppliers who will not have the design and development, testing, production, warehousing and distribution costs of the whole product and the slow-moving parts. They are effectively acting as parasites in the market.
One of the things we must do is to encourage the exports of manufacturing goods. One of the features of successful world marketers of manufactured goods is that they have worldwide distribution systems. Those systems handle not only the whole products but the servicing and the parts supply. A feature of the operation of those companies, taken as a whole over a period of time, is that there may be periods when they depend upon income from spare parts to keep business going and other times when they will depend upon the income from their whole goods supply to keep them going.
Another aspect of the good practice of those established companies which take a long-term view of their activities is the improvement in quality and reliability and the reduction in the price of the components. The consumer benefits from those improvements. Those factors all benefit us as a manufacturing nation and as consumers.
Finally, the designer's intellectual endeavours are as important as those of the authors of literary works. On that basis, we should not limit their intellectual property rights in a way we should not attempt to do with authors. I beg to move.
Lord Mottistone: Amendments Nos. 282 and 290 are grouped with the amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Monkswell. Amendment No. 289BZ is included in the group although I am not sure that he mentioned the latter amendment. I shall speak to Amendments Nos. 282 and 290. I have a slightly different solution to the problem from that of the noble Lord, although, in general, what I have to say is not dissimilar.
Amendment No. 282 seeks to remove paragraphs (b). (c) and (d) from subsection (3) of Clause 192. I shall briefly mention why those particular paragraphs are not suitable for this Bill. Paragraph (b) excludes what can be described as the "must fit features" of design from design right protection; that is, a design right does not grant protection for those features of a design which are dictated by the shape of another article with which it is intended to co-operate.
I do not argue against the provision of a defence against infringement based on the need for an article to work with another article. However, I am advised by the CBI that it is of the opinion that it is better not to exclude such features from protection but rather to provide a defence against infringement. Accordingly, I have tabled Amendment No. 290 in order to deal with that problem.
Paragraph (c) excludes from protection by design right aspects of design which are necessary in order that one article should match the design features of another. I shall deal with some of those points on Amendment No. 297. The effect of these exceptions is that many common articles which are designed for matters different from those for which the clause is intended will be denied protection. For example, let us take a tea-pot lid. It is obvious that the lid must fit and match the tea pot and that the tea pot must fit the lid. Therefore, both are to be denied protection. That will lead to counterfeiters of chinaware being able to sell their goods as spare parts for Wedgwood and Crown Derby. A two-piece dress is another example
1106
from a different trade. Both parts have the features of shape or configuration dependent upon the appearance of that of which the article was intended to form part, so neither part, nor whole, will have any design protection.
The designers of children's construction kits, such as Meccano and Lego, will be affected. There is a whole range of articles from creative British industry—from furniture and home decorating to agricultural machinery, which the noble Lord mentioned—which will be denied the protection that they currently have.
The competitiveness of British industry as a whole depends upon its design skills and the assurance of a firm home base. Although all is not well with the current law, it is easy to abuse it in some sectors. The drafting of Part III as it stands will cause more harm than any other part of the Bill.
One of the by-products of this which we fear is that the interest which has been generated in good design for industrial items will be discouraged and indeed perhaps not pursued further. It is a battle which has been fought for many years and I am delighted to see the noble Lord, Lord Reilly, in his place, because it is some 15 years since I dealt with him when he was the director of the Design Centre and I was director of an industrial training board. He was seeking to try and persuade me to give him grants to encourage training in industrial design. I was not very encouraging to the noble Lord at that stage but industrial design is important. Indeed, if I listened carefully enough to my noble friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry when he made his Statement this afternoon, I believe that he rather made a point of the fact that British goods must go for good design and for making themselves superior in the marketplace. It would seem to me that this subsection which I am seeking to amend will have the effect of discouraging rather than encouraging good design. I hope therefore that my noble friend will give due regard to that amendment.
Perhaps I may turn briefly to Amendment No. 290. This is in two sections. The first reintroduces the "must fit" argument or detail which I have sought to delete from Clause 192 subsection (3)(b). The second subsection of my Amendment No. 290 attempts to make clear that design right protection can apply to spare parts with the intention of superseding the British Leyland v. Armstrong decision. So in effect in this amendment one is seeking to reintroduce in a different form the deletion of subsection (3)(b) in dealing with the infringement.
Finally, I turn to subsection (3)(d). This provision appears to have been included in order to prevent duality of protection as between design rights and copyright. It is hard to see how any benefit can derive from such an exclusion. It will therefore only have the ability to cause mischief. I think one must remember that there is mischief; that there are pirates who seek to copy good British designs wherever they can get their oar in. It is this sort of mischief which one seeks to discourage and not to allow to develop.
I hope that my amendments might appeal to my noble friend, perhaps not in exactly the form in which they are put forward, but in some form so as to

1107
provide a greater protection for industrial design in the wider industrial market.
5.15 p.m.
Lord Howie of Troon: I wish to refer briefly to two of the four parts of subsection (3)—paragraphs (a) and (d). Paragraph (a) specifically excludes methods or principles of construction. That would be part of design, as I would use the word and indeed as any respectable dictionary would use the word. I can see that, from the point of view of the Government, it is quite sensible to exclude that since it underlines the narrow range over which this part of the Bill is intended to apply.
The same can be said of paragraph (d) to which the noble Lord, Lord Mottistone, referred a moment or two ago. The decoration applied to the surface of an article is surely another area of design, as any ordinary man would use the word or indeed as any respectable dictionary would use the word. It is excluded and here again this underlines the narrowness of the Bill.
This would not matter too much if these two elements of design were protected elsewhere in the Bill. I think it would be quite sensible to protect decoration on the surface under the copyright parts of the Bill. I am not sure that the Bill actually does that. However, I am sure that the copyright part of the Bill does not exclude the method or principle of construction. Noble Lords will remember that we had conversations in the very early part of the Bill, when I moved to include building structures as well as buildings under the copyright part of the Bill. This merely reinforces the arguments which I used then and to which I hope the Minister is paying close and continued attention. Indeed, I hope he has by now made up his mind.
If these two elements of design are to be excluded from design right here they must in all fairness be protected under some other part of the Bill.
Lord Denning:I hope that noble Lords will not accept these amendments. It seems to me that the word "design" must be elucidated and not carried too far. That is done by subsection (3), excluding all those matters from design right. As my noble friend Lord Howie has said, it is a great help to show the extent of design right and it is helpful to the courts in that way.
On the other point about fitting in with something else, it seems to me that it is quite right to exclude the mere shape of fitting in, whether it is the teapot lid with the teapot or the cup and saucer, or whatever it may be. If each of those is to be protected as a design right, it is each individually. But the particular shape which brings them together need not be protected. In other words, I would suggest that the Bill is all right as it stands and that we need not accept any amendments.
Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone: Perhaps I may reinforce what the noble and learned Lord on the Cross-Benches has just said. I do not know what effect the extremely learned speeches of my noble
1108
friend Lord Mottistone and the mover of this amendment have had on others, but they had on me precisely the effect of the preaching of St. Paul before the Governor Felix in the Acts of the Apostles. They have allowed their wide knowledge of the subject and of the intricacies which it involves to obscure the simplicity of what we really ought to be discussing. We are discussing the protection of intellectual property. This is an extremely difficult and intricate subject.
I am far from saying that this will be the last word on the subject, and I do not believe that this Bill will be the last word on the subject. On the contrary, it is a developing area of law which can probably only be dealt with by legislation and not by case law. Having said that, we have a variety of ways available to us of protecting intellectual property. There is the law of copyright which we have dealt with earlier in the Bill. There is the law of patents; there is the law of trademarks, the law of registered design, the law of passing-off, which can be dealt with up to a point by case law.
The important point is that one must not try to use one of these methods of protecting intellectual property so as to overlie hopelessly with the other. The question of policy which we have to decide in these and other cognate matters is how to reconcile the legitimate rights of the owner of intellectual property who has put work, intelligence and originality into the creation of a new product with the right of the consumer to the enjoyment of that new product without being constantly badgered by litigation.
It seems to me that the basic fallacy, if they will permit me saying so, underlying both the mover of this amendment and my noble friend Lord Mottistone is that they are trying to use this new and extremely original new right which is proposed in Part III of the Bill to achieve some of the objects which could be achieved only by one of the others if they were to be achieved at all. I have already crossed swords with the noble Lord, Lord Monkswell, for trying to use that as a method of consumer protection against dangerous products. Again I feel that the Government have on the whole been quite right in making this new design right a fairly limited thing. It does not and is not intended to cover the gold figures on the canopy in the House of Lords. That would be covered, if at all, by copyright as a work of art. It is not designed to protect the users of a rotary mower from the blades flying off and hitting the consumer or a third party in the legs. It is designed simply for the protection of design so as to prevent duality of protection with the copyright law which has hitherto been the only avenue of approach.
I feel that by trying to omit either parts, as my noble friend Lord Mottistone would do, or the whole of subsection (3) which excludes from the protection of the design right various aspects of the appearance of articles like decoration, they are trying to go much too far in the wrong direction.
As I listened to the noble Lord, Lord Monkswell, speaking, I was reminded of the development during my lifetime of razor blades and safety razors. Originally there were three holes in a Gillette into

1109
which one fitted three prongs but then other people made safety razors and eventually there was a battle between the producers of blades who tried to produce a kind of Yale lock or master key which would fit any kind of safety razor and those who were constantly inventing new types of razor which could only be accommodated by blades of their own particular design. We do not want to get into that kind of muddle in discussing this part of the Bill. I personally would prefer to keep subsection (3) in its present form.
Lord Lucas of Chilworth: I should like to support those who have spoken, particularly my noble and learned friend Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone, who object to the whole series of amendments that we are now discussing. I take a rather narrower view than my noble and learned friend because I look at the pragmatic situation which has arisen and which leads us to be considering these amendments. It is purely and simply the "must fit must match" exception, particularly as applied to motorcars, agricultural vehicles and articles of that kind.
If one looks at the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Mottistone, coupled with Amendment No. 290 one sees that he proposes that Clause 192(3)(b) should be deleted and Clause 205 should be extended by adding new subsections (5) and (6). In that way he proposes that the "must fit" features of a design should be protected by the design right but that it will be a defence in any action for infringement of the design right to show that the features copied were "must fit" features. That measure seems to me quite unnecessary and quite undesirable. The noble Lord then proposes in Amendment No. 282 that Clause 192(3)(c) should be omitted. He said that this clause amounted to a pirate's charter. He went on to suggest that good design will be discouraged and that industrial design will he affected. I suggest to him that that is a long way from the truth.
The intention of the subsection as written in the Bill is to prevent manufacturers of the consumer durables which I have described from using the design right to prevent all competition in the supply of spare parts. Those spare parts must be used to replace worn, corroded or damaged parts and they must restore also the visual appearance of an article. That is what the subsection does and that is wholly proper and reasonable. When the noble Lord, Lord Monkswell, complained that only the original maker should have the right to supply spare parts, although he accepts that there is no statutory duty upon him so to do, I draw to the attention of the Committee the situation that applies with original equipment manufacturers who indulge in what is called a cross-products programme. Unipart, for example, will make spare parts, water pumps, distributors or silencers, that not only fit cars from their stable but cars right across the board, as do FoMoCo, the Ford people, and as do General Motors through its AC Delco offshoot.
Therefore one finds that the very manufacturers of the original product—whether it is a tractor, a digger, a motor car or a lorry—who make spare parts are quite happy to manufacture spare parts for other makes but deny the opportunity to the component
1110
manufacturer and independent to do the same. That is fundamentally wrong. The example given by my noble friend Lord Mottistone of a teapot is not really a very good one.
Lord Mottistone: Why not?
Lord Lucas of Chilworth: It is not a good example because if the design of a teapot is novel it can be protected as a registered design. Clause 246(1) and new Section 7(2) and (3) prevent the manufacture and sale of separate items intended for use as a kit assembled into a complete article.
The noble Lord, Lord Monkswell, spoke about British industry. If one accepted this series of amendments, they would frustrate the intention of the Bill which is to provide a spur for innovation and not to protect industry from competition. We cannot hope to thrive if we surround ourselves with protective barriers which are not available in any of the other major industrial countries of the world in which we trade, for example, Japan, USA, France, West Germany, Canada, Italy and others all of whom permit the manufacture of parts which are the subject of those parts of the Bill which we have been discussing. If the amendments were passed they would prevent our manufacturers from expanding their activities and from selling into markets where no such restrictions exist. That would be a lost opportunity to British industry.
One really must look at the current position where a British manufacturer of these consumer durables is in fact importing the very parts from overseas countries which the amendments would prevent being manufactured in this country and using them either in the supply of spare parts or as original equipment under the terms of the Bill. Again that cannot be fair and it cannot be right. Nor can it be helpful to British industry. For those reasons, and for a number of others, I hope that the Government resist the block of amendments.
5.30 p.m.
Lord Morton of Shuna: I shall speak in favour of the amendments. As was indicated by my noble friend Lord Williams of Elvel, the issue here is one of policy. I remind the Committee that in the White Paper there was a promise, contained in paragraph 3.21, that:
"the Government has concluded that some protection should he available to give the manufacturer who has spent money on design the opportunity to benefit from his investment, thus providing an incentive to further investment. It has also concluded this protection should extend to spare parts".
Of course the Government can change their policy and their minds. That is a policy decision. However, it appears to us on this side of the Committee that what has been done has perhaps been illustrated by the noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth. The policy has gone from the motor industry into all other aspects of industry. In our view, it would have been much better to have looked at the matter first from the general view of industry and then to have seen how it could be approached. As many Members of the Committee will know, there has been considerable pressure from other industries, from

1111
Westland and from the Association of Manufacturers of Domestic Electrical Appliances. They are in different positions and they have different problems from those of motor manufacturers.
If one is manufacturing and designing objects which may be sold for several million pounds each but of which only about 10 may be sold and the parts wear out after a certain number of hours of use, one has different problems from those of manufacturers who manufacture thousands of motor cars which will require four or five exhausts during a lifetime. If we are saying that as a matter of policy spare parts should have no design protection, we immediately get into the question of what a spare part is. A battery may be a spare part when used in a car and yet he an article in its own right in another situation.
The matter does not appear to us to have been thought out. The Government do not appear to have considered the difficulties that will affect employment or the effect on the cost of the initial article when the research and development costs will have to go into the initial cost instead of (as is presently the case in items of high capital cost) into spare part replacement costs.
For those reasons, we consider that it is appropriate to go back to the position of the White Paper and to give protection to spare parts.
Lord Beaverbrook: For the convenience of the Committee, I shall also speak to Amendments Nos. 281X, 282, 289BZ and 290, all of which essentially concern the exceptions to design right contained in Clause 192(3). The best known of those provisions appears in Clause 192(3)(b) and (c) and are perhaps more often referred to as the "must-fit" and "must-match" exceptions to design right. The reason they appear in the Bill is probably well known to the Committee. It is to prevent design right conferring a monopoly. The problem is that where one article has to fit another, it must of necessity be a copy of the design of that other article to some extent. That is of particular but by no means exclusive application to spare parts used to repair equipment of all kinds. Because of the need to fit (and hence the need to copy) design right without these provisions could completely shut competitors out. I have to say very firmly that this is not what we want. Accordingly, the exceptions allow copying where that is compelled by design constraints.
The effect of both exceptions will of course vary depending on the circumstances. For example, for a pump for an aircraft, the design is mainly free standing but it has to be connected to the aircraft. The Bill as drafted would allow the connecting features to be copied so that others could compete with their own pump designs. But it would not allow the free-standing parts of the pump to be copied. As a result, there would in general be protection for parts. Where, however, the design is entirely dependent on the design of the equipment to which the article is to be fitted, then the Bill would allow the entire article to be copied.
The best known example of that situation is a car body panel, and in that connection I have heard a
1112
good deal about the Bill being a pirates' charter. Again I have to say very firmly that we do not accept that. The plain fact of the matter is that in this kind of case competitors have absolutely no choice but to copy the entire article. Where the circumstances compel copying, we believe that the need for competition in the aftermarket must prevail. It therefore follows that I must resist Amendments Nos. 281X and 282 in so far as they concern Clause 192(3)(b) and (c).
So far as concerns Amendment No. 281X and Clause 192(3)(a), again I have to resist. We have already discussed the scope of design right in connection with Lord Monkswell's, Amendment No. 281W. It is our view that design right should be confined to the form of articles. Clause 192(3)(a) is no more than a reflection of that view, to avoid any doubt.
To turn to Clause 192(3)(d), the question is whether there should be an exclusion from design right in respect of decoration applied to the surface of an article. In our view, decoration is a matter for copyright and indeed registered designs law. The issue therefore is whether any additional protection provided by design right would cause any difficulty. In our view it would. It would confuse the nature of design right, which is intended to apply to the overall form of an article and not to decoration applied to a surface. I do not accept that the presence of the exclusion could be exploited unfairly with a view to denying protection to certain designs. It is, I think, a simple and a necessary provision.
Perhaps I may say to the noble Lord, Lord Howie of Troon (who is not present at the moment) that methods and principles of construction are not matters for copyright law or indeed anywhere in the Bill. They can be protected under patent law and we consider that that is sufficient. As I have already said. decorative features are protected in the Bill under copyright or registered designs law.
Turning to Amendment No. 289BZ, we find a different recipe for dealing with the monopoly effects of design right in the absence of must-fit and must-match exceptions. I have already indicated that we believe that the must-fit and must-match exceptions are necessary. They are also sufficient because they prevent any monopolies arising in the first place. It follows that we do not need the amendment.
Regarding Amendment No. 290, there are four distinct points. First, should the exceptions appear in Clause 192 or in Clause 205? Conceptually the right place is in Clause 192. The aim is to allow copying where that is necessary; it makes much more sense and is a clearer indication of the importance of the provisions to place them in Clause 192 so that design right does not arise at all in the design features concerned. To place them in Clause 205 would give the impression that they are an afterthought—a small concession—and could lead to narrow interpretations. Those provisions are fundamental, and placing them in Clause 192 will leave no room for doubt in that respect. Placing them in Clause 205, on the other hand, will give room for doubt.
Secondly, should we have a must-match exception at all? I think it will be fairly clear already that my

1113
answer to this is yes. However, we can see that in the case of Clause 192(3)(c)—the must-match exception—it may be that we have drafted the exception a little too broadly. For example, it may be that the exception should be cast only in terms of parts which are an integral part of the whole. This would avoid the exception applying to sets of cutlery, soup tureens or kettles, ladles and lids. We shall therefore be looking at this particular aspect of the question again in the light of what has been said here today with a view to bringing forward an amendment at Report stage.
Thirdly, should we restrict the must-fit exception to cases where the copying is essential, as the first paragraph of Amendment No. 290 would have us do? In our view that is too narrow. It would place an intolerable burden on competitors who would have to analyse every one of their designs minutely to decide whether any copied feature was really essential. Again it would convey the impression of a minor and limited exception restricted in application to cases of absolute necessity. The Bill as drafted is more flexible. It will allow competitors to operate fairly without forever looking over their shoulders and it will protect designers against unfair copying of the free-standing aspects of their original designs.
Finally, do we need an express provision overriding the judgment in the British Leyland v. Armstrong case and providing that design right cannot be denied on the sole ground that we are dealing with a replacement part? In our view the clear answer is: no. Design right expressly goes to the designs of articles; it contains express and prominent provisions for exceptions which, as I have said, will avoid monopolies; and it includes provisions for dealing with abuses. The present copyright law has none of these attributes and it was, I think, for that reason that the Judicial Committee of this House decided as it did in British Leyland v. Armstrong. Design right is a self-contained, balanced package just like the patent and registered designs statutes to which the British Leyland v. Armstrong spare parts exception was expressly not applied. We indicated in the White Paper that British Leyland v. Armstrong would not apply. Indeed, there is no room for the British Leyland v. Armstrong judgment to apply because the Bill as drafted deals with the monopoly problem in a different way. Consequently there is no need to deal with the question.
In this and all the other respects I have mentioned, we believe that the Bill has it right, subject as I have said to the further thought we shall be giving to the precise wording of Clause 192(3)(c). Therefore I have to say that I cannot accept the noble Lord's amendment.
Lord Mottistone: I thank my noble friend very much for his extremely clear and lengthy exposition of the Government's position. I shall of course need to read it to see whether anything needs to be brought forward for the next stage, but I am extremely grateful to him for having undertaken to modify Clause 192 (3)(c), in ways that I should like. I shall not be moving my amendment.
Lord Monkswell: I thank the noble Lord, Lord Mottistone, for chipping in on this debate. It obviously saves time when we are discussing broadly similar things to discuss several amendments together. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Howie, for his support in objecting to subsections (3)(a) and (3)(d). I note the wish of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hailsham, to reconcile the rights of designers with the rights of consumers. The argument is that he thinks that the Bill achieves that aim while I believe that the Bill as written does not. No doubt we shall carry on this argument to the end of our days.
We are faced with a very deep philosophical divide, in the sense that, as the noble Lord, Lord Morton, quite rightly stated, we are dealing with a reflection of government policy, and the Minister has reinforced that view. The Government have taken the line that they are interested solely in dealing with what they describe as monopoly practices rather than considering the rights of the designer.
Unfortunately, we are faced with this Bill. The problem is that I do not think that they have thought through the position. They say that they are opposed to monopoly practices, which may be all very well. The theory is that if one is against monopoly one is in favour of the consumer. However, in practice, what will be the result of this Bill in terms of the design, manufacture, service and parts supply of motor cars? That is just one aspect that seems to obtrude into all our deliberations.
However, as the noble Lord, Lord Morton, has suggested, we are dealing with a whole range of other products other than motor cars. Even if we just condsider the motor car, the fact that the Minister has stated that it will be quite legitimate for anybody to copy fast-moving spare parts for motor cars, effectively means that that source of revenue will be denied to the original manufacturer. If one allows competition and the competitor does not have the cost of production, development tests, distribution and warehousing costs, etc, almost by definition the copiers, the pirate producers and pirate suppliers will be able to provide the components more cheaply. With this Bill the Government are in effect saying to the public: "This is the way you get things more cheaply and the way you prosper—by going to the marketplace and buying cheap spare parts for your motor car". That is the implication of what the Government are saying.
Unfortunately, the long-term result will be that the consumer will not get his motor car any more cheaply; he will not get his spare parts more cheaply. If we take into account the whole life cycle costs from the initial purchase of the motor car through its service and spare parts requirements to the end of its lifetime, the consumer will almost inevitably pay more. I hope that the Government will think about this matter; I hope that they will listen to the representations of some other major industries and think again on this subject. In the meantime I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 282 not moved.]
[Amendment No. 283 had been withdrawn from the Marshalled List.]
Clause 192 agreed to.
Clause 193 agreed to.
5.45 p.m.
Clause 194 [Ownership of design right]:
The Deputy Chairman of Committees: It has been suggested that Amendment No. 283A should be grouped with Amendments Nos. 284, 285, 286, 298C, 299, 302HA and 302HB. If that is convenient to the Committee, as the noble Lord, Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran, is not here, perhaps the noble Lord, Lord Tordoff, will say so.
Lord Tordoff: I have only one slight reservation about what the noble Lord the Deputy Chairman has just said. In view of the fact that my noble friend has had to leave the Committee for a period—I hope that he will be back later—and that his amendment covers the whole clause and he would rather see what is said about the various parts of the subsection before going any further, I have been advised that he would wish this amendment not to be moved.
[Amendment No. 283A not moved.]
Lord Mottistone Lord Mottistone moved Amendment No. 284:
Page 95, line 4, after ("worth") insert ("in the absence of an express contractual term").
The noble Lord said: Taking advice from the Chair, perhaps I may also speak to Amendment No. 299, as the two go together, and also to Amendments Nos. 285 and 286 together, because in effect they are one amendment.
The object of Amendments Nos. 284 and 299 is to make it possible for the designer to have a contract with the commissioner of the design, if that is thought to be reasonable at the time by the two people concerned.
It is not essential that there should be such a contract but the amendment makes provision for it. It seems to me and to my advisers that that is fair.
Amendments Nos. 285 and 286 are on the same lines, although rather different. They seek to bring Clause 194(3) into line with Clause 11(2), which relates to the same issue in respect of copyright. I suggest to the noble Lord that there can be no good reason to treat design rights and copyright differently in this respect. If it is the intention to do so, the difference in wording between Clause 11(2) and Clause 194(3) should be eliminated. I hope that those amendments—perhaps pedestrian compared with the larger ones that we have been considering—will appeal to my noble friend on the Front Bench. I beg to move.
Lord Morton of Shuna: I am not entirely sure which group of amendments we are now supposed to be discussing. However, on the understanding that the grouping is that which the Deputy Chairman read out, apart from Amendment No. 283A, I speak to Amendments Nos. 298C, 302HA, and 302HB. These are in the name of my noble friend Lord Williams of Elvel and myself. This group of amendments relates
1116
principally to the position of a person who creates a design because he is commissioned to do do, because he is employed to do so or because he happens to do so when he is employed. The designer should have the basic statutory right to the intellectual property in the design, leaving it to the contract—either the commission contract or the contract of employment—to transfer that right to the commissioner or the employer if that was suitable.
It seems to us that the commissioner or the employer is normally in a position where he can dictate the terms of the contract more readily than the designer, whether he is a self-employed person or an employee. It would therefore be easier to have the burden of setting out the contract on the commissioner or on the employer.
Members of the Committee will be aware that the Patents Act 1977 includes employee rights to inventions in Sections 39 to 43. When dealing with employee rights, as we are in discussing these new design rights and the registered designs, it is appropriate that the approach should be broadly similar. That is the provision we seek with the amendment.
Lord Beaverbrook: For the convenience of the Committee I shall speak to Amendments Nos. 284. 285, 286, 289C, 299, 302HA and 302HB. I shall occasionally perhaps allude to Amendment No. 283A in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Lloyd. These amendments concern ownership of the rights in designs. We devoted some time to the provisions of Clause 11 of the Bill when we discussed employed and commissioned authors. I indicated that we place considerable reliance on the ability of the parties to override the provisions on first ownership of copyright by assignment. The same is true of both design right and registered design rights. It is for this reason that the provisions of Clauses 194 and 245 on the ownership of the rights in commissioned and employee designs can both be overridden by assignment. I should, however, say a few words about the differences in the treatment of copyright and design rights in the Bill.
One difference is that for commissioned designs it is the commissioner rather than the designer or author who is entitled to the right. The different treatment here comes about because the background is different. Indeed, many Members of the Committee will probably know that the basic regime set out in Clauses 194 and 245 of the Bill is essentially the same as that which has operated in registered designs for a very long time now without any difficulty; and it is of course important that the ownership provisions of design right and registered designs should be the same because both rights can apply to the same design.
Perhaps I may deal first with Amendments Nos. 298C, 302HA and 302HB. The effect of these would of course be subject to assignment and in that respect I think that they are right. However, the provisions would also reverse the original ownership of commissioned and employee designs by giving first ownership to the designer rather than to the commissioner or employer. I should also point out in passing that Amendment No. 302HB seeks to amend

1117
only Schedule 4, which is merely a statement of the Registered Designs Act as amended. To make this amendment effective a similar substantive amendment to Clause 245 would also be necessary. In any event, I have to say that we are very reluctant to overturn the long-established provisions in the Registered Designs Act. It is our understanding that the existing provisions have worked well. In contrast to the position under copyright, we are certainly not aware of any great desire for change. I would therefore wish to resist the noble Lord's amendments.
Turning now to Amendments Nos. 284, 286 and 299 of my noble friend Lord Mottistone, these highlight the second difference between the copyright and designs provisions. In Clause 11 of the Bill the provision on the ownership of employee works is subject to agreement to the contrary. The registered designs clauses on the other hand contain no equivalent provision. However, the same effect can be achieved by an assignment under Section 2(2) of the 1949 Act. Similarly the design right provisions in Clause 194 are subject to assignment under Clause 202. Under that clause assignments have to be in writing, signed by the commissioner or employer. The result is that the only real difference between the Bill as drafted and my noble friend's amendments, and indeed the copyright provision, is that the amendments would allow the basic position to be overridden by any agreement, including an oral agreement. The copyright provisions permit the use of less formal agreements, because copyright works often arise more casually than designs. However, in the case of designs we think that we should stick with the established registered designs regime and I would therefore resist these amendments.
I would, however, add that my noble friend's Amendment No. 286 also highlights a minor drafting difference between copyright and designs. This is the use in Clause 11 of the expression "the first owner" and in Clause 194 of the different expression "is entitled to". We do not think that in practice this will make any difference but there are obvious advantages in adopting a consistent approach. We shall therefore he looking into this in time for the Report stage.
Finally, in his Amendment No. 285 my noble friend has also pointed out a second drafting inconsistency between Clauses 11 and 194. I am grateful to him for doing this, because it seems to us that on this occasion there is no good reason for the difference. However, our preliminary view is that it is Clause 11 which should be changed and that the word "person" rather than "employee" should be used in both places. Nevertheless, if my noble friend would like to withdraw his amendment, I shall return to it at Report stage.
6 p.m.
Lord Mottistone: I am extremely grateful to the Minister for his comments on my amendments. I shall read with great care the explanation my noble friend gave that the Bill already gives effect to my first Amendment No. 284. I also greatly appreciate what he said about Amendments Nos. 285 and 286 and that he will be considering those. I therefore beg leave to withdraw Amendment No. 284.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 285 and 286 not moved.]
Clause 194 agreed to.
Clause 195 [Duration of design right]:
[Amendments Nos. 287 and 288 not moved.]
Lord Mottistone Lord Mottistone moved Amendment No. 289:
Leave out clause 195 and insert the following new clause:
("Duration of design right.
195. Design right expires twenty years from the end of the calendar year in which the design was first recorded in a design document or an article was first made to the design, whichever first occurred.").
The noble Lord said: This amendment relates to the length of time for which a design right lasts. It is really a matter of opinion as to what a reasonable length of time might be. It is the view of industry generally that a 10 to 15-year term is insufficient to enable research and development costs to be recovered. A 20-year term is seen as a better compromise. It should be recognised that product lifetimes, especially in the mechanical engineering industry, can be long and it is current practice to recover substantial parts of the development costs of heavy machinery over the lifetime of spare parts for that machinery. At present, a utilitarian design, such as a turbine blade, will he denied practical protection while cheap jewellery is capable of protection for 25 years.
The suggestion of 10 years seems to us to be an arbitrary figure and it is not supported by, or thought to be needed in, the experience of other countries or needed for the purposes of European member state reciprocity. Other periods of protection in excess of 10 years are available in other member states where there is protection under other laws such as unfair competition laws.
The existing definition of the term design right is unduly complex in that it defines the term as the lesser period of 10 years from the end of the calendar year from which the article was first marketed or 15 years from the date on which the design was first recorded. The former period depends on the definition of "first marketed" as defined in Clause 241(2). That excludes,
"marketing which is merely colourable and not intended to satisfy the reasonable requirements of the public."
This will cause grave difficulty in determining the actual duration of a design right with any degree of precision.
Provision for licences of right in the last years should be removed as wholly misconceived and wrong for business, just as they have been removed from the pharmaceutical industry. Finally, consumer interests can be adequately protected through the compulsory licence provisions set out in Clause 218.
Basically the lengths of time for design rights are not good enough for an important and large part of industry if it is to recover its costs. It is not particularly fair that this very short period of 15 or 10 years, depending on which part of the clause one is dealing with, should be applied in its place. I hope that my noble friend will be able to come some way towards agreeing with my amendment. I beg to move.
Lord Denning: I hope that the Committee will not accept the amendment. Design right is a very special right. We do not want it to be too long. It should be nothing like 50 years as in the Copyright Act. Let it be a short time. Any person who designs can make much of his profit within that time which may be five or 10 years as the case may be. Do not let him have a monopoly in it for 25 years. In other words, for the sake of competition reduce it to the time already in the Bill.
Lord Fanshawe of Richmond: I should like to support my noble friend Lord Mottistone in his Amendment No. 289. I am afraid that I cannot go along with the remarks made by the noble and learned Lord. I must declare an interest, first of all, as a director of the Westland Group since the reconstruction of the group in 1985.
It seems to me that the attitude of Her Majesty's Government to research policy does not tie up with the drafting of the Bill. The Government's research policy is covered in the Government's response to the First Report of the House of Lords Select Committee on Science and Technology in the 1986–87 Session. In that it is stated that:
"Public investment in science and technology will not achieve its full economic benefit unless industry undertakes the applied research and development to capitalise on this investment. The Government recognise the importance of increasing civil R&D as a share of public R&D, and are taking action accordingly by restraining the real level of defence R&D. The primary problem, however, is the low level of industry's investment in R&D. The Select Committee state that the main responsibility for funding 'D' rests with industry. The Government agree. They have created a climate within which investment in R&D by industry is able to flourish".
But what will happen if the Bill is unamended in the way suggested by my noble friend Lord Mottistone? It will remove the rights of industry involved in longterm high technology projects to a just return on capital investment in research and development. The Government's policy appears to be to reduce the contribution from the defence budget and to expect industry to fund research and development. Furthermore, in the effort to shift emphasis to the civil field, industry is also asked to fund research in the non-military area. This was underlined this afternoon by the Statement made by my noble friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry in this House.
But the policy in the Bill provides little incentive for industry to invest in research and development when the return would be so uncertain. It does not answer and is detrimental to the needs of defence, aerospace and other capital equipment companies whose products have a long gestation period between first design and entry into service. This is particularly the case where research and development costs are amortised over spare and replacement parts because recovery on the front end price would render the product unattractive or non-competitive.
Certain of the design right provisions will be a disincentive for companies to invest in the design and development of high technology products, particularly if little or no protection against copying will be available by the time of entry into service. At present as set down in Clause 195, design right will expire, as mentioned by my noble friend Lord
1120
Mottistone, 10 years from the end of the calendar year in which articles made to the design were first put on the market by or with the consent of the owner of the right, subject to an overall limit of 15 years from the end of the year in which the design was first recorded in a design document or an article was first made to the design, whichever first occurred. It should be recognised by noble Lords that the lifetime of products produced by companies in the aerospace industry, such as Westland, including helicopters, hovercraft, aircraft life support and environmental control systems and similar products produced by other companies, is long. It is current practice to recover substantial parts of development costs over the lifetime of spare parts for such products. The term presently proposed in the Bill is considered by industry as a whole to be insufficient. This amendment of my noble friend has been put down to extend the term to 20 years from the end of the calendar year in which the design was first recorded in a design document or an article was first made to the design, whichever first occurred.
Aerospace companies would prefer the term to be 25 years. There was at an earlier stage an amendment on the Marshalled List recommending 25 years; it has now been withdrawn. If that cannot be had, most aerospace companies would be content with 20 years, as suggested by my noble friend Lord Mottistone. This would allow for products having long periods of development and requiring difficult and prolonged contractual negotiations in advance of a confirmed order to meet the deadline. I hope that my noble friend will look at this very carefully and perhaps give it further consideration at Report stage if he cannot give us a firm answer this evening.
Lord Morton of Shuna: Without wishing to enter into an argument about 10, 15, 20 or 25 years, it appears slightly illogical that the registered design period is apparently in the legislation to remain at 25 years and the unregistered design, the new design right, is 15 years. There does not appear to be any reason why this should have a different period. Perhaps when dealing with these amendments the Minister will explain why it is thought that, when the only distinction appears to be their aesthetic elements, there is supposed to be this difference in the period of time for protection.
Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone: I am not qualified to deal with particular periods and therefore I shall listen to my noble friend on the Front Bench when he comes to reply with very great attention and without a strong desire to differ from him whatever version he chooses to maintain. I should like to say a word in support of my noble and learned friend on the Cross-Benches. I am against monopolies. I am also in favour of protecting intellectual property. It has been said more than once in the course of this evening that we are dealing with a very wide range of products indeed. My noble friend behind me will, I am sure, be relieved to know that I do not own a helicopter; but I have used the products of the motor industry over a very large number of years. I thought as I listened to my noble friend Lord Mottistone, the noble Lord, Lord Monkswell, and now my noble friend behind me that the supporters of an exclusive

1121
right in this context have rather underestimated the extent to which they will continue to enjoy a very large market for their spare parts, whatever period of exclusive monopoly they may be given. The original manufacturer of a complicated design undoubtedly starts with an immense advantage, even without a legal protection.
I always buy spare parts from the manufacturer of my Maestro car, notwithstanding the result of the House of Lords' decision in British Leyland v. Armstrong & Company. I shall continue to do so. It starts with know-how, it has experience of the product and it is only if a spare parts manufacturer in competition with it ultimately does a good enough job to take part of its market that it will lose anything at all. I doubt whether even then it will lose the whole lot. I think that manufacturers protest rather a lot. We are starting off with a new and hitherto unrecognised right for their advantage and I think perhaps they are over-egging the omelette when they ask for a longer period than they have been offered. However, if my noble friend is disposed to give way to them, I shall not in any way try to stop him. I only feel that we must remember that the rights of the consumer are in the main against monopoly as such.
6.15 p.m.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: The problem perhaps arises because the new right covers so many different types of article. There are certain articles to which my noble friend spoke where there are substantial research and development costs which in a sense might be treated as discoverable and disclosable in a special form of register, which would give a longer period of protection and which would not give rise to reasonable objections on the grounds of monopoly. On the other hand I agree without qualification with everything my noble and learned friend Lord Hailsham said about monopoly. There are certain other types of article where the costs of design are minimal and there is no research and development at all.
I wonder whether my noble friend the Minister could give some consideration to the very real disparity between perhaps millions of pounds spent on research and development over a long period of time in one place to produce a design and nothing or £10 spent in the other and regard the new right not as giving rise always to exactly the same measure of protection.
Lord Monkswell: I think it would make sense if I spoke to my amendment, which is the next one, to give the Minister an opportunity to reply to both matters at once. Amendment No. 289AZ seeks to provide a simplified definition of the period of design protection and give a reasonable period of protection. I must admit straight away that I cribbed the words from the noble Lord, Lord Mottistone, in his amendment.
When we debated Clause 52, which gives protection against copying to an artistic work reproduced by industrial means, the problem with making the distinction between artistic and non-artistic works was raised. I thank the noble and
1122
learned Lord, Lord Hailsham, for the support that he would give me if the Minister would accept my amendment. If my amendment were agreed to this problem of whether a thing is artistic or not artistic would disappear because the periods would effectively be the same.
Since the subject of turbine blades has come up, I should like to point out that they are in fact incredibly artistic artefacts. If you stand an individual turbine blade on its own on a desk, it is a pure work of modern art.
This is an important aspect of the Bill. When we consider any aspect of legislation we should try to understand how it will be interpreted by the courts. We are all agreed, I am sure, that the Bill will give rise to litigation. There are enormously powerful commercial reasons why that should be so. One of the changes that has occurred over the last 20 or 30 years is the recognition of design as art. We engineers have long recognised that. We see artistic merit in the articles that we design every day. It is now becoming commonplace for artists and art critics to recognise artistic merit in what would normally be desribed as industrial objects. Unless we do get some commonality in the time period between Clause 52 and Clause 195 we are going to see litigation with one side trying to prove that the object under discussion is an artistic work and the other trying to prove that it is a work to which design right applies, and vice versa. One can almost imagine the BBC taking the rights and creating a soap opera about it. The main reason for tabling the amendment is to confer a proper degree of protection for design rights.
One must recognise that many people consider to be invidious the fact that there should be a distinction between the timescale for the copyright for authors—which extends for 50 years after the author's death—and the timescale for the design right protection for designers. The designs of the Spitfire, the Hurricane and the Rolls-Royce Merlin engines will live for ever in the annals of this country's history. Who is to say that they are any less important than the work of a long-forgotten author who may still be alive.
I could continue for a long time about great British designs and designers. I shall not do that because it would be too boring for most Members of the Committee, although I dare say that there are some with an engineering background who would take delight in some of the names that I would care to mention.
We must recognise that today we have talented young designers who are the equal—who to say "better"?—of Sydney Cam, who gave us the Hurricane; of Frank Whittle who gave us the jet engine; of Colin Chapman who gave us the incredibly beautiful Lotus sports cars; and Alec Issigonis who gave us the Mini. One has the big problem of giving our industrialists the incentive to employ talented young designers and to invest in modern plant and machinery in order to enable their designs to he made cheaply enough for world markets.
We live in a throw-away age and while that grieves us we must be realistic. We know that designs must change and that some manufactured articles do not

1123
last. However, we must also recognise the fact that a good design will last. I should like to look at one example: the Mini. It was introduced in 1959 and 29 years later it is still going strong. I am sure that many hundreds of the Minis which were built during the first year are still running. Few people realise that the engine in the Mini was designed in the 1930s. With some minor modifications that engine is going strong 50 years later.
A few moments ago I spoke of the investment in designs and in the plant and equipment to manufacture them. We must consider the cost of such development and tests. Is it realistic for companies such as Rolls-Royce to invest hundreds of millions of pounds over 10, 15 and 20 year-periods in new aerospace engines and features for those engines and then, after five years in production, to have those new designs lifted by the competition? It is totally unrealistic. As the Bill is drafted, the best course for the directors of Rolls-Royce would be to sell out to Sir Owen Green of BTR. He could turn Rolls-Royce into the cheap supplier of spare turbine blades for the world. In order to do that he would have to stop spending money on research and development and throw on to the dole thousands of highly qualified engineers, scientists and skilled men and women.
One of the problems of this day and age is that all the pressures are on companies to make a quick profit; to operate only in the short-term; to do no long-term planning and to have no long-term investment. The customer is imbued with that attitude. The classic example of that was when British Leyland changed from its world-beating suspension system to a similar design of suspension system as that used by its competitors. Its hydrolastic suspension system was slighty more expensive to install as original equipment but it was more comfortable and reliable and, over the life-time of a motor car, cheaper to run. However, it did not make a profit on spare parts because there were none; one does not have spare parts for a hydrolastic suspension system. However, if one has a suspension system of springs and shock absorbers, such as Ford, General Motors and Honda, one has a nice little earner from the spares parts supply. Therefore British Leyland changed from a good design to a less good design but the customer paid more for it in the end: the customer lost out. That illustrates the kind of pressure that this Bill will place on the British manufacturing industry.
Whether it be batteries, exhaust systems or shock absorbers, good quality parts should last for many years and the original equipment supplied with a motor car will do so. However, what about spurious spares? The chances are that they will be fitted to second-hand cars. As the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hailsham, said, he is the proud owner of a Maestro motor car which he no doubt bought new. He is within an income bracket that enables him to afford to have his car serviced and supplied with spares by the original supplier. However, that luxury is not usually available to the second-hand motorist who must look around for the cheapest source of parts. The marketplace says, "Yes, we have a free market in spare parts and you can go to wherever to
1124
buy your exhaust system, battery or shock absorber". The chances are that it will be of a lower quality than the original equipment and instead of lasting for five or six years it may last for only 18 months or two years. The owner of the car who bought the spare parts will probably have sold it after 18 months or two years to a third or fourth owner. That new owner must then replace the reduced-quality spare parts thinking that they are original—
Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone: If the noble Lord will give way, I should like to know where his argument is leading. Is he saying that the new owner, who is allegedly a poorer man than I (although I very much doubt that) should not be allowed to buy the lower-priced product if he wishes to?
Lord Monkswell: The argument that I am trying to put forward is that if we give the original manufacturer the design right protection for 25 years, not only shall we save the problems of litigation, which I mentioned earlier, but we shall also create an environment where the manufacturer will seek to provide to the customer a high-quality product that will last for a long period of time. At the moment all the pressures in the market place are to operate on a short timescale to produce cheap and shoddy goods which will not last a long time, and if we pass the Bill unamended that will continue. They may last for a year or 18 months which will be sufficient to cover the warranty period of 12 months—
Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone: I am sorry to interrupt the noble Lord again but he has already spoken about the Mini which has lasted for donkey's years and has remained effectively the monopoly of British Leyland, with no design right at all.
6.30 p.m.
Lord Monkswell: My understanding is that until the British Leyland v. Armstrong case, most manufacturers and spurious spare parts suppliers, unless they were operating right in the margin, assumed that copyright would protect them, and that since that judgment the marketplace has been thrown wide open and nobody knows where they stand.
We have, effectively, an unregulated market for which, quite rightly, the Government are seeking to form some regulations. I believe that they are right to do that. My contention is that the direction of the legislation is wrong and I hope to change it by making it more progressive to suit British manufacturing industry.
Lord Beaverbrook: For the convenience of the Committee, I should like to speak to Amendments Nos. 289 and 289AZ, both of which deal with the term of design right protection. Any period selected for an intellectual property right is necessarily somewhat arbitrary. Nevertheless, there are a number of factors which lead us to the view that 10 years in the market, subject to an upper limit of 15 years from the creation of a design, strikes the right balance.
First, we must consider how the period fits in with what applies to other kinds of intellectual property.

1125
Copyright and registered designs would, under the Bill, last for 25 years but they will not protect functional designs. Functional designs are chosen for the job they do and are of central importance to the functioning of industry. It is therefore important that they are not locked away for long periods. In this respect, patent protection is limited to 20 years from the date of application and the application will of course always precede marketing, often by a considerable period. Even so, in the context of functional articles the resulting period of protection is quite long. But patents protect inventions and it is the spark of invention which justifies this period. In our view, the invention inherent in a patent deserves a longer period of protection than a non-patentable design, which is what we are concerned with here.
We therefore settled on an upper limit of 15 years from creation of the design so as to pitch the duration of design right somewhat lower than the patent term. Nevertheless, even at this level it could be longer than the period during which a patent can be exploited. This could happen in cases where the time between the making of the application for a patent and the marketing of the product is more than five years. We therefore settled on a period of 10 years in the market within the upper limit of 15 years from creation.
In doing this, we also had to consider international developments. Although there is no international convention in respect of functional designs, proposals to establish a treaty covering designs of semiconductor integrated circuits are currently under discussion internationally. It is suggested that the protection should last for 10 years in the market, consistent with the term adopted in American and Japanese laws on this topic. This term was arrived at on the basis of similar considerations to our own and it is not surprising that the result is so similar.
It follows from what I have said that the amendment of my noble friend Lord Mottistone, Amendment No. 289, and the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Monkswell, Amendment No. 289AZ, provide too long a period. There is a balance to be struck here and in our view the periods set out in the Bill strike the right balance. I therefore cannot accept the amendments.
Amendments Nos. 289 and 289AZ, however, also raise the question of the event from which the period should be measured. As drafted, the Bill relies on marketing for the basic 10-year term, and on creation of the design for the upper 15-year limit. In many cases this will in practice mean that it is marketing which counts. And, from the point of view of the competitor, marketing is an essentially public event. In the vast majority of cases, competitors will first become aware of a design when products are put on the market. They will therefore know with certainty the latest point at which the 10-year clock could have been started. The fact that the period is counted from the end of the year in which the product was first put on the market will help. As a practical matter, we believe that marketing is a sufficiently clear and public event on which to base the period of protection. If a competitor suspects that a product is made to an old design and the 15-year cut off period has expired, then he can apply for discovery to get the facts.
1126
Having said that, I do nevertheless think there may be a point here in cases of unsuccessful marketing or offers to sell which are made early during development and before an actual design has crystallised. There may well be something that we should do here to prevent this kind of marketing from starting the clock. We shall of course need to look at this carefully and I will return to it at a later stage.
My noble friend Lord Campbell of Alloway pointed out that design right would give the same length of protection to designs irrespective of the investment put into them. In this respect, intellectual property laws throughout the world invariably give a fixed term and will therefore have that effect. It would be very difficult to define in the statute what levels of investment would lead to particular periods of protection. However, licences of right will be available under Clause 217 and the royalties payable will reflect the investment in the design. I shall, of course, have more to say about that later.
In conclusion, we believe that we have this balance about right and therefore I resist Amendments Nos. 289 and 289AZ.
Lord Mottistone: I thank my noble friend for his careful exposition of the case and I thank those noble Lords who have supported me. I also thank my noble friend for undertaking to have a look at the precise definition of what sort of marketing should trigger off the periods in the clause as it stands.
I shall read with great care what has been said and hope that I shall remain convinced, but I reserve the right to come back at the next stage if the arguments are not so strong as they seem to be at first sight. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 289AZ not moved.]
Clause 195 agreed to.
Lord Monkswell Lord Monkswell moved Amendment No. 289BZ:
After Clause 195, insert the following new clause:
("Duty associated with design right.
—(1) It shall be the duty of the owner of a design right, where articles made to that design have been marketed, to maintain the supply to the market of such articles as are required as spare parts.
(2) Failure to comply with this duty shall render the design liable to be made available for public inspection and no design right or copyright shall thereafter apply in respect of that design.")
The noble Lord said: This amendment introduces a duty for design right holders to market—
Lord Campbell of Alloway: I have crossed this amendment from my Marshalled List as it has been spoken to, I believe.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Strabolgi): If I may say a word, it has been spoken to but it is up to the noble Lord whether or not he moves it.
Lord Monkswell: With the leave of the Committee, I think it will be useful if I move it because the thread of the argument flows through. I hope that I shall not take too long. This is a much shorter speech than my earlier ones.

1127
This amendment seeks to bring forward a duty for design right holders to market spare parts where necessary,with an associated penalty of loss of design right if spares are not available. When speaking to Amendment No. 281X, I advised that there was no statutory duty on the part of manufacturers to supply spare parts. While in fact there may be a common law duty under the terms of contract and design, there exist no statutory requirements.
I tabled this amendment as a quid pro quo to the rendering of adequate design right protection. In this respect, the four amendments which I tabled—namely, Amendments Nos. 281W, 281X, 281AZ and this one—are in my view to be taken together as a package.
Again, I stress that I am trying to enshrine in law good industry practice that benefits the consumer. I am advised by one major manufacturer that not only do they export over 75 per cent. of their products all over the world but they also ensure that supplies of spare parts are available worldwide for between 10 and 20 years after the last model has gone out of production. In some cases, after this time and where they may not continue to have a source of supply to themselves, they make a copy of the design drawing available to the customer. That is the type of good practice that we should encourage and those manufacturers who fail to adhere to good practice should be penalised by losing their design rights. I beg to move.
Lord Beaverbrook: I have already responded to the noble Lord's Amendment No. 289BZ. I repeat myself by saying that we find here a different recipe for dealing with the monopoly effects of design right in the absence of "must fit" and "must match" exceptions. I have already indicated that we believe the "must fit" and "must match" exceptions are necessary. Therefore I resist this amendment.
Lord Monkswell: I thank the Minister for his reply and I also apologise for not picking up the thread of the debate and the response which he gave earlier. I think it is useful for me to advise the Committee of the continuity of the thread of my amendment and the reasons for it. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 196 [Qualifying individuals and qualifying persons]:
Lord Morton of Shuna Lord Morton of Shuna moved Amendment No. 289ZA:
Page 85, line 39, after ("country') insert ("which has ratified or acceded to the International Convention revising the Paris Convention for the Protection of Industrial Property of 20th March 1883, or which is").
The noble Lord said: I hope to be fairly brief with this amendment. It deals with Clause 196, which concerns qualifying individuals and qualifying countries.
At Second Reading the Secretary of State, if my memory is right, or it may have been the Minister,
1128
dealt with the approach to this and to Amendment No. 296ZA, which I believe I should be speaking to at the same time. There is a similar amendment in the registered design provisions. They depend upon reciprocity and not upon the international convention. I dealt with this at an earlier sitting of the Committee in relation to performing rights and a different convention.
Here we are dealing with the Paris Convention, which covers both design right and registered design right. The amendment I seek is to extend the protection to countries which have adhered to the convention as well as to those which provide reciprocal protection. It seems appropriate that there should be this adherence to international conventions such as the copyright convention and this convention rather than depending only on reciprocity. At the moment this country seems to be eager to persuade developing and other countries to join international conventions and it seems the wrong time not to abide by international conventions. That is the purpose of the amendment. I beg to move.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: I oppose this amendment because I prefer the concept of reciprocity. That is a state of fact which can be judged by the Secretary of State. It is preferable to the mere ratification of the convention, which does not necessarily mean that it is implemented. It marries with the concept of Amendment No. 302JZA and to Clause 250—albeit in another context—which relies very heavily upon the concept of reciprocity. As a matter of consistency, and as Amendment No. 302JZA is in my name, I oppose this amendment.
Lord Beaverbrook: With the leave of the Committee I shall speak to Amendments Nos. 289ZA and 296ZA also. The Paris Convention provides for the protection of various categories of intellectual property, including aesthetic but not functional designs. It requires each contracting state to give the same protection to nationals and residents of the other contracting states as it gives to its own. It will therefore be necessary for the United Kingdom to give design right protection to aesthetic designs created by nationals and residents of other contracting states. This obligation will arise regardless of whether another contracting state provides equivalent protection for designs.
The proposed amendments, however, would have the effect that designs created by nationals and residents of the Paris Convention states would qualify for design right protection under the combined effect of Clauses 196 and 236. These provisions are intended to extend design right protection in circumstances where another state provides reciprocal protection for British designs and, as I have mentioned, the United Kingdom's obligation under the Paris Convention arises regardless of any reciprocal protection.
It is our view, therefore, that it is inappropriate to deal with the protection of designs of nationals and residents of the Paris contracting states in Clauses 196 and 236. The correct place to deal with this is in Clause 200, which already contains a power to extend the design right qualification provisions to enable the

1129
United Kingdom to comply with its obligations under the Paris Convention. It of course goes without saying that the United Kingdom will honour these obligations and our intention would be to make orders under Clause 200 to that end. I hope that on that basis the noble Lord will accept that his amendment is unnecessary.
6.45 p.m.
Lord Morton of Shuna: Perhaps I misheard the Minister. I understood him to say that the Paris Convention does not apply to functional design. Perhaps he can make that clear and advise me whether I misheard him.
Lord Beaverbrook: I repeat that the Paris Convention provides for the protection of various categories of intellectual property including aesthetic but not functional designs.
Lord Morton of Shuna: Perhaps the Minister will consider the wording of Article I subsection (2):
"The protection of industrial property has as its objects patents, utility models, industrial designs, trademarks, service marks, trade names".
and so on. Then subsection (3) includes:
"industrial property shall be understood in its broadest sense".
It appears that there is a basic disagreement between those advising the Minister and the information which I have, which is an English translation of the convention. I do not wish to become involved in an argument at this stage which is quite unproductive. It will be better if I now withdraw the amendment and perhaps the Minister will take a look at it.
Lord Beaverbrook: That is a very reasonable course of action. On that basis we shall consider whether we are actually standing on the same playing field let alone deciding where the goalposts are.
Lord Morton of Shuna: I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 196 agreed to.
Clauses 197 to 201 agreed to.
Clause 202 [Prospective ownership of design right]:
On Question, Whether Clause 202 shall stand part of the Bill?
Lord Williams of Elvel: Clause 202 deals with the prospective ownership of design right and I read this as a total layman and not a lawyer. I have problems with one or two expressions in the clause. The "prospective owner" of the design right is defined but what is not defined is the passage in subsection (2) which refers to,
"the occurrence of a future event".
The subsection as drafted defines a "future design right" which means a,
"design right which will or may come into existence in respect of a future design or class of designs or on the occurrence of a future event".
1130
I am quite unclear as to what this really means. I should be most grateful if the noble Lord could help me.
Lord Beaverbrook: Clause 202(1) merely provides for the assignment of right in a design which has not yet been created or in a design for which rights do not yet exist. The latter case covers those designs which will qualify for protection under the terms of Clause 199 which have not yet been put on the market. The assignment of future rights has an important part to play in the context of the ownership of the rights in an employee or commissioned design as we have discussed.
For an assignment of future right to be effective it must be in writing and signed by or on behalf of the prospective owner of the right. The result will be that as soon as a right comes into existence it will automatically vest in the assignee without anything further needing to be done. This has advantages when, for example, a number of different designs are created because it avoids having to make a corresponding number of separate assignments for each design. It is also possible for the prospective owner of design right to grant a licence in advance of the right coming into existence, and subsection (3) of this clause simply applies the principle laid down in the previous clause, namely, that the licence is binding on those subsequently acquiring the right, subject to an exception where a purchaser buys the rights without notice of the licence.
In essence, therefore, this clause is about procedures, and provides a convenient method of dealing with future rights. In view of this, I hope it can be accepted that this clause is necessary.
Finally, "the occurrence of a future event" refers to a first marketing under Clause 199 which will result in design right coming into existence.
Lord Williams of Elvel: I am most grateful to the noble Lord, but why does it not say so?
Lord Beaverbrook: I have just said so. I am not quite clear what the noble Lord is getting at.
Lord Tordoff: With respect, the Bill as it stands does not say so.
Lord Beaverbrook: I misheard the noble Lord. I thought he asked why I did not say so.
Lord Williams of Elvel: I beg the noble Lord's pardon. I did say "Why does it not say so?" "It" referred to the Bill, and I did not mean any discourtesy to the noble Lord at all.
Lord Beaverbrook: Having cleared up that slight misunderstanding, I think that the noble Lord has a point. We will look at it and take note of what he has said.
Clause 202 agreed to.
Clauses 203 and 204 agreed to.
Clause 205 [Primary infringement of design right]:
[Amendment No. 289A had been withdrawn from the Marshalled List.]
Lord Campbell of Alloway Lord Campbell of Alloway moved Amendment No. 289B:
Page 88, line 40, leave out paragraph (b) and insert—
("(b) the reproduced design must be the same as or not substantially different from, the design in which design right subsists;
(c) the reproduction must involve the taking of a substantial amount of the original skill and effort expended in the creation of the design in which design right subsists as distinct from ideas embodied in such design.").
The noble Lord said: This is a probing amendment to which I have already spoken on Amendment No. 281VA, and my noble friend the Minister kindly suggested that we should defer further discussion on it until now.
The origins of this amendment are the intellectual property sub-committee of the Society of Conservative Lawyers. The concern which they feel, and which I am respectfully putting before this Committee, is that the protection afforded for this new design right is too wide, to put it in plain terms. Because it is too wide it may have a damaging effect on the interests of British industry because of the monopolistic attributes.
My noble friend the Minister has accepted, in the context of Clause 192(3), that the exceptions drafted were too wide and he said that he would be looking at them. This is another aspect of the same problem if one looks at it through the other end of the telescope. In other words, the amendment which stands in my name is, in effect, a narrowing provision of limitation, and the effect of the proposed paragraph (b) is to import into the unregistered design right the "not substantially different" test already applicable to registered designs.
As the design right under Clause 192(2) subsists in parts of articles, the "substantial part" test used in the copyright law would not be appropriate.
The effect of paragraph (c) as proposed in the amendment is designed to ensure that the protection afforded under copyright law applies to unregistered design right, and to exclude ideas. The drafting is largely my own and inevitably inadequate. It is only a vehicle to advance the principle for the consideration of the Committee and my noble friend the Minister. The problem arises out of the width of the drafting of Clause 205(3)(b) which this amendment seeks to replace, which states:
"reproduction may involve the making of a new design, and it is immaterial that design right may subsist in that design".
It is those provisions which are thought to be far too wide and it is felt that the courts would tend to apply them very widely indeed. As regards protecting this new right, the respectful suggestion is that my noble friend the Minister might consider this further and take advice upon it. As I say, this is advanced only as a probing amendment.
Lord Beaverbrook: The amendment of my noble friend Lord Campbell would delete subsection (3)(b) of Clause 205 which provides that reproduction is
1132
still reproduction even if it involves the creation of a new design. This provision is included simply to preserve the rights of someone whose design has been copied by another in the process of producing a derivative design; for example, if someone designs a doll and another produces a toothbrush-holder based on the doll. The toothbrush-holder could give rise to its own rights, and in such a case both parties would have rights in the derivative design, which is clearly fair. It is equally fair that the owner of design right in the doll should be able to sue the designer of the toothbrush-holder for infringement. All this is achieved by subsection (3) (b) as drafted.
The new paragraph (b), which this amendment would insert, would provide that:
"the reproduced design must he the same as or not substantially different from, the design in which design right subsists."
This definition of "reproduction" is similar to that which the courts have used in the context of copyright. In our view the courts would attribute the same meaning to "reproduction" in the sphere of design right as they have in relation to copyright and therefore this new provision is unnecessary. Indeed, as I have said on a number of occasions already, it is positively undesirable to attempt to tic the courts down to specific definitions of this sort and lose the flexibility of a simple, general expression.
The new paragraph (c) in this amendment seeks to ensure that design right will protect only the design and not the ideas embodied in the design. We are sympathetic to this aim but are of the view that the insertion of the new paragraph is unnecessary. The point is already covered under the Bill as drafted. First, Clause 192(3)(a) expressly provides that design right does not subsist in a method or principle of construction. Secondly, case law has established that copyright protects the expression of an idea rather than the idea itself, and there can be no doubt that the Courts would apply the same principle in relation to design right.
I hope that what I have said is helpful to my noble friend. Perhaps he would like to consider what I have said.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: I am very much obliged for the reply which my noble friend the Minister has given. I am a little confused about this because, on the one hand, he says as regards paragraph (b) that the courts would apply it anyway, so what is the object of putting it in? Would the courts apply it anyway? How does he know? You are creating a totally new right, and if you are creating a totally new right and you really do not know what test the courts will apply, why not put it in the Bill? If my noble friend the Minister says that it is the test they would apply, and says that there is nothing wrong about the test, why not in substance put it in the Bill? On the other hand, it is said that one must not tie the hands of the courts. Which is it? It cannot be both in logic. You are either going to not tie the hands of the courts and assume that they will apply any test, or you are going to assume, on a ministerial asssumption which has no legal effect, that the courts will apply a certain test.
Of course I shall withdraw the amendment, but I hope that my noble friend the Minister can give further consideration to this matter as regards

1133
paragraph (b). Regarding paragraph (c), the drafting is adrift but the principle is sound, and I would ask my noble friend to give some consideration to it.
7 p.m.
Lord Williams of Elvel: Before the noble Lord decides what to do with his amendment, perhaps I may support his reasoning. I found the Minister's reply to the introduction of this amendment very odd. It started off by saying, "Well, this is really not right". Then he goes on to say, "This is not necessary". Either it is not necessary, and we can abandon the argument altogether, or it is not right—in other words, it is wrong—and the toothbrush and the doll have got to be separate questions, in which case we have to have a clear definition. The Government cannot have it both ways.
Finally, the Government cannot say that we shall leave it to the courts, and we do not want to fetter the courts. If the Government are taking that view, then why are we discussing the detail of the Bill in the first place? As the noble Lord, Lord Campbell, rightly points out, we are dealing with a new right, and there is absolutely no underlying assumption that the courts are going to deal with this right in exactly the same way that they would deal with copyright or any other right of intellectual property which may subsist.
I listened carefully to what the noble Lord, Lord Campbell, had to say before intervening because I did not wish to interrupt the argument and discussion between himself and his noble friend. But listening to the noble Lord's reply, it seems to me that the toothbrush and the doll in fact raise exactly the sort of issue that the noble Lord is getting at, and we have to clarify this matter. I accept that the noble Lord is putting this forward as a probing amendment, but on reading the noble Lord's amendment I am clear what it means and I find now, after hearing the Minister, that I am not entirely clear what the Bill means.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: May I add that it is worth stressing that this is not really my amendment? It is an amendment proposed by the Intellectual Property Committee of the Society of Conservative Lawyers because, using the words of the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Elvel, they took the view that the Bill was too wide and warranted clarification. The amendment has a perfectly respectable origin, although I moved it myself.
Lord Beaverbrook: I do not want to enter the argument as to whose amendment this is. I do not accept that there should be any difficulty with our argument that the courts are familiar with the term "reproduction" in the sphere of design right. It has been applied in other intellectual property for many years. I would say to my noble friend Lord Campbell that the new right uses concepts which already exist in intellectual property law, and reproduction is one of them. My point was that the courts will apply this concept with no difficulty.
However, we need a provision making clear that a design can he reproduced in the course of making a substantially different new design. I shall look
1134
carefully at what my noble friend has said, and also at what the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Elvel, has said in these discussions, and see whether perhaps this can be clarified somewhat.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: I am extremely grateful not only to my noble friend the Minister but for the help that I have had from the Benches opposite from the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Elvel. This is really a non-political problem trying to get a reasonable and sensible solution and definition as to the limitations of the new right. I am grateful to the Benches opposite and I thank the Minister. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 290 not moved.]
[Amendment No. 291 had been withdrawn from the Marshalled List.]
Clause 205 agreed to.
Clause 206 agreed to.
Clause 207 [Meaning of "infringing article"]:
[Amendment No: 291A had been withdrawn from the Marshalled List.]
[Amendment No. 292 not moved.]
Clause 207 agreed to.
Clauses 208 and 209 agreed to.
Clause 210 [Right to seize infringing copies, etc]:
On Question, Whether Clause 210 shall stand part of the Bill?
Lord Tordoff: My noble friend asked me simply to say—and I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway, will say more than I can say— that he has already spoken to this under Clauses 89 and 177 on the matter of the methods of seizure, about which he is extremely worried. He has subsequently received a letter from the noble Lord the Minister saying that the Government intend to look at the seizure provisions both in this clause and in Parts I and II. Therefore, he would not wish to press the matter any further, and he is grateful to the Minister for having written to him. I dare say that the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway, wishes to say more.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: I oppose the Question that Clause 210 shall stand part of the Bill. I have had a word with the noble Lord, Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran, and we are entirely in agreement upon this and I shall not carry my speech in opposition beyond just a word or two. This clause is concerned with rights of seizure of infringing copies of design rights. These rights of seizure in relation to infringing copies of copyright were considered under a previous clause. My noble friend the Minister gave an undertaking that he would consider this position. Exactly the same position arose on illicit recordings under Clause 177, and again my noble friend the Minister undertook to consider the position.
The consideration was against the criticisms of this do-it-yourself right of seizure. They were that it was not requisite having regard to the present state of

1135
existing law; it was not desirable, having regard to the potentialities for abuse; it was not reasonable, there being no provision for compensating third parties who suffer losses through unjustified seizures; and it was not acceptable, there being no adequate, but essential, safeguards.
I have not had a letter from my noble friend the Minister, but there is no reason why he should have sent me one because I did not send him one. If he has sent a letter to the noble Lord, Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran, renewing his undertaking, I would in advance seek to withdraw my opposition to the clause standing part of the Bill.
Clause 210 agreed to.
Clause 211 [Supplementary provisions with respect to forfeiture orders]:
[Amendment No. 293 not moved.]
Clause 211 agreed to.
Clause 212 agreed to.
Clause 213 [Rights and remedies of exclusive licensee]:
[Amendment No. 294 not moved.]
Clause 213 agreed to.
Clause 214 [Provisions with respect to concurrent rights of action]:
Lord Beaverbrook Lord Beaverbrook moved Amendment No. 294A:
Page 92, line 24, leave out (", and any right of action exercisable, by") and insert ("or available to").
The noble Lord said: This amendment corrects a minor technical defect in the drafting and is identical to the amendment, agreed to by the Committee, to the equivalent copyright provision in Clause 92 of the Bill. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 214, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 215 [Infringement of copyright]:
On Question, Whether Clause 215 shall stand part of the Bill?
Lord Mottistone: Clause 215 has the effect of preventing an action for design right infringement where it would be possible to take an action for infringement of copyright. Since the design right is a lesser right, this provision is unnecessary. Furthermore, it may have the effect of denying protection to features of design which are of value. I should be grateful if my noble friend could comment on that because it seems to me that there is no need for Clause 215 and it would seem to be wrong to put it into the Bill if that is the case.
Lord Beaverbrook: The overlap between copyright and design right occurs in cases where a design is first recorded in a copyright work such as a design drawing. The Committee will recall that in Part I of the Bill Clause 51 cuts back copyright in this area by
1136
providing that it is not an infringement of copyright to do certain things relating to articles which are themselves not artistic works; for example, car exhaust systems. The borderlines of copyright are therefore clearly drawn.
However, where the article concerned is an artistic work—as for example would be the case with design drawings for a sculpture—under Clause 192 design right as well as copyright would be applicable to the making of the sculpture. The result is that design right overlaps into an area which is properly a matter for copyright. This clause cuts back the effect of design right by providing that anything done which infringes copyright does not infringe design right.
The result is that copyright and design right are mutually exclusive, each operating in the appropriate field. While this may not be of significance where the copyright and the design right are owned by the same person, it certainly is significant where the ownership of the two rights lies in different hands. This clause will ensure that the two different owners each get the benefit of appropriate rights and is necessary for this purpose. However, I readily admit that this purpose is not at all apparent on the face of the clause. Accordingly, we shall be looking at the clause again with a view to bringing forward an amendment at Report stage to make its effect clear. With that assurance, I hope that my noble friend and the noble Lord, Lord Monkswell, may be able to withdraw their opposition to the clause.
7.15 p.m.
Lord Monkswell: Before the noble Lord sits down, if that is the right phrase, I wish to make one point. My concern is slightly separate from that of the noble Lord, Lord Mottistone. It seems to me that the clause would give a reverse way of reducing copyright. I am thinking of the example of a pop-up book, a book in which parts of the page come up to form a three-dimensional article. It could be construed that an action could be taken in regard to that by saying that the book which would normally be considered copyright was an article to which design right applied. That would seem to be a mechanism by which something which we would accept as copyright would lose copyright and have a lower right attached to it. The clause needs to be looked at and I am glad that the Minister has agreed to do so.
Lord Williams of Elvel: I was not going to intervene on the clause stand part debate because I could not understand what Clause 215 actually meant. Now that the Minister has explained what it is intended to mean I think it would be extremely useful if we could have this in reasonably plain English. Even the Notes on Clauses do not explain exactly what the Minister has just said. I am not sure whether the clause really says what the Minister has just said because I simply do not understand it.
It is a vitally important clause because the whole relationship between design right and copyright is one that has given a great deal of trouble to some of our advisers. They do not quite understand where design right ends and copyright begins. The noble Lord would do very well to take it back and ask his advisers and officials to have a look at it again.
Lord Beaverbrook: Having heard what the noble Lords, Lord Monkswell and Lord Williams, have said, I emphasise that it is the intention that copyright should prevail where there is an overlap, so there would be no question of a back-door reduction of copyright. That is the intention. However, we are fully aware that there may be some valid criticism of the wording of the clause.
Clause 215 agreed to.
Clause 216 [Effect of patent application]:
On Question, Whether Clause 216 shall stand part of the Bill?
Lord Mottistone: The effect of Clause 216 is to deny design right protection to material which is included in the specification of a patent application. It operates from the date of publication of that material, thereby denying a proprietor of a patent application protection in the period between the publication and the grant of a patent. During this period he is therefore not in a position to seek legal redress for infringement of design right since he cannot enforce the patent during this period. Furthermore, if the patent application is rejected or subsequently lapsed he would have lost the ability to enforce the design right. The effect of this clause will be to discourage small inventors from using the patent system to protect innovation. This in its turn can have an adverse effect on the protection of United Kingdom innovation overseas.
To give the Committee an idea of the times that might be involved where the protection is missing, a patent application takes 18 months to be published and it is three and a half to 10 years before the patent is granted. The design right is lost on publication. The designer cannot enforce the patent until it is granted. Therefore there may be a gap of between three and a half and 10 years during which there is no protection. It seems to us that this clause creates that situation. I hope that my noble friend will find a way either of explaining it very well or even of rewording it.
Lord Beaverbrook: This clause provides an exception to design right in cases where an application for a patent covering a design is made by or with the consent of the design right owner. The essence of a patent is that it is a monopoly granted in return for the disclosure of an invention. It is inherent in the bargain struck between the inventor and the state that subject only to the patent monopoly everyone should be free to use and learn from the disclosure of the invention. We therefore decided that a provision is necessary to ensure that any design right cannot be used to prevent the patent being fully and freely worked; for example, where the patent monopoly lapses.
We thought that the public should not be prevented from stepping in because of design right considerations where a patent monopoly has lapsed or indeed where a patent was never granted. If we allowed this to happen it would make a nonsense of the original bargain between the inventor and the state. Of course if someone were to apply for a patent covering a design without the design right owner's
1138
permission, it would be wrong to detract from the design right. In this case the owner would keep his right and the patent would rightly be defective in the sense that it could not be used without regard to design right.
That said, we recognise that there are two sides to this. We were particularly anxious to hear the views of members of the Committee. One side is the public interest in having access to a patent. That is the side represented in the clause as drafted. This was quite deliberate because the public voice is often not heard. The other side has been ably put by my noble friend Lord Mottistone.
I am also conscious of the fact that it would usually be possible to work an invention without reproducing the features of shape or configuration of the particular embodiment of the invention illustrated in a patent application; in other words, the design right will not necessarily obstruct the working of the patent.
I should like to ask for time in which to reflect upon what my noble friend has said. If he will agree that the clause shall stand part for the time being, I shall return to the matter at a later stage.
Lord Mottistone: I thank my noble friend for those remarks, which seem wholly satisfactory.
Clause 216 agreed to.
Clause 217 [Licences available in last five years of design right]:
On Question, Whether Clause 217 shall stand part of the Bill?
Lord Mottistone: In speaking to this I shall speak also to the notification which I have given of my intention to advise leaving out Clauses 226, 227 and 234, all of which are consequential upon Clause 217.
In this case licences of right are opposed as they wholly negate the protection term during that part of the term in which they are available. The pharmaceutical industry has convinced the Government that licences of right should not be available during the protected term, and the same should apply to all industry. The effect of granting an automatic licence of right on design right is to reduce the effective term by five years. It is an unnecessary complication to provide for such a clause. To the extent that consumers may be at risk from abuse of design right the compulsory licensing provision in Clause 218 should give adequate protection, especially if this is modelled on the compulsory provisions of the Patents Act 1977. I therefore think that Clause 217 is obstructive to industry and had better not be in the Bill.
Lord Beaverbrook: Clause 217 concerns licences of right and is one of the more significant provisions on design right. In this respect the approach of my noble friend Lord Mottistone is very straightforward. He has said that licences of right effectively reduce the term of design right and should not be included. While it is of course true to say that licences of right reduce the strength of the protection, it is, if I may say so, too extreme to say that they reduce the term. Even

1139
under licences of right the design right owner has rights. In particular he has what amounts to a right to remuneration.
In any event I prefer to look at it from the other direction. The licence of right provisions extend the basic five years of exclusive rights. My noble friend the Secretary of State referred to this on Second Reading, when he said:
"We do not wish to keep competition out of the market for as long as 10 years".
I accept of course that the competition provided under a licence of right will involve copying, but in our view that is fair because a licence will have to he paid for. The design right owner will have five years' exclusivity in the market, which we think is long enough.
There is however another aspect to this. My noble friend Lord Mottistone indicated that he could accept that a provision to deal with abuses of design right may be necessary, and he suggested compulsory licensing provisions modelled on those contained in the Patents Act. However, the licence of right provisions are not intended to deal with abuses. They give a degree of flexibility to what would otherwise he a fixed term of protection applying across the board in all areas of design.
We gave much thought to the extent of the right given by design right and we concluded that it would be correct to take steps to ensure that the rewards flowing from design right should reflect the investment put into the design. This is achieved by giving all original designs five years' exclusive rights and a further five years of licensing, where we anticipated that the royalties will reflect the costs that have gone into the design. Subsection (4) of Clause 226 contains a provision requiring the comptroller to take account of factors specified in a statutory instrument when he settles the terms of a licence in default of agreement.
Although we have not yet come to a final view on the factors that should be included, they will be essentially economic—for example, the financial investment that the design right owner put into the design or into establishing a market for the design. Since economic factors may change, we felt it best to keep the provisions flexible by using secondary rather than primary legislation. However, we recognise that the question is important and that we should hear the view of Parliament before taking a decision as to what factors to include. Subsection (5) of Clause 226 therefore provides that the statutory instrument requires the positive approval of Parliament.
We believe that Clause 217 is a vital part of the Bill and that, other things being equal, licences of right should in general apply. However, I should say a few words about subsection (3). Subsection (3) contains provisions for disapplying licences of right in relation to specified categories of design or of article. That is provided to deal with such things as the EC Council directive on the legal protection of designs of the internal layout of semiconductor integrated circuits, the similar American law and the proposed treaty on the same subject. All these require that the 10-year duration of protection is undiluted by the automatic
1140
availability of licences of right. In the case of the United States it appears that United Kingdom chip designs will not be protected if licences of right are available for United States chip designs in this country. For semiconductor chip designs we take the view that the investment necessary to design an integrated circuit chip is such as to justify having no licences of right. That is why we agreed to the Council directive.
While this is a special case, it may not he the only one. It is therefore necessary to deal with the possibility that further international developments may require the exclusion of automatic licences of right in relation to other categories of design or designs of other categories of article. I must however emphasise that in our view the disapplication of licences of right is appropriate only in exceptional circumstances. The normal rule will be that licences are available. The circumstances in which subsection (3) can be activated are of course limited to cases of international agreement of one kind or another. Nevertheless, because the circumstances will be exceptional, we thought that it would be right to bring the question before Parliament. That is why subsection (4) provides that the licence of right provisions can be disapplied only by statutory instrument that has obtained the positive approval of Parliament.
I apologise for speaking at some length on the point. It is an important issue and I thought that I should explain why we believe that Clause 217 is a vital and necessary part of the Bill.
Lord Monkswell: I did not intervene earlier because I thought that the Minister would take up the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Mottistone, that licences of right currently available in the pharmaceutical industry will no longer be available. One reason for that, I believe, is the intense aggravation between the parties that is generated by the matter of licences of right. It is feared that acrimony, had business practice and bad law will be injected into manufacturing industry in an area that is already fairly difficult as between original equipment manufacturers and component manufacturers. To force parties who are already not on the best of terms into a contract is a recipe for conflict. I hope that the Minister can respond in some way to these concerns.
Lord Beaverbrook: I have explained why we believe that Clause 217 is necessary, especially in regard to the possible necessity to exclude certain aspects. However, I cannot agree with the noble Lord that licences of right per se are a bad thing, bad law or bad business practice. Licences of right are a common feature of business life. They occur frequently and regularly. The mechanism for agreeing remuneration seems to work fairly well. Once the comptroller has come to the conclusion, then it is accepted by all concerned. I should say to the noble Lord, Lord Monkswell, that we have the repeal of the patent licences of right provision because of the erosion of patent term for pharmaceuticals and not for the reasons given by him.

1141
I hope I have answered the noble Lord's point. We have a basic disagreement about the existence of licences of right. They are in the best interest of all concerned, and Clause 217 is an important part of the Bill.
Lord Mottistone: I am grateful to my noble friend for what he said. This is a complicated matter. We shall have to read what has been said with great care. I am not sure that the clause as it stands says entirely what my noble friend has just told us. He might like to look again at it. We shall look carefully at what he has said to the Committee.
Clause 217 agreed to.
The Earl of Dundee: Your Lordships' Committee may feel that we have reached a suitable moment at which to break in order to return to the matter in one hour's time at 8.30 p.m. I beg to move that the House do now resume.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
House resumed.

Farm land and Rural Development Bill [H.L.]
7.33 p.m.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Baroness Trumpington): My Lords, I beg to move that the Bill be now further considered on Report.
Moved, That the Bill be further considered on Report.—(Baroness Trumpington.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
Clause 2 [Grants in respect of faun woodlands]:
Baroness Nicol Baroness Nicol moved Amendment No. 3:
Page 3, line 41, leave out ("and").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, it may be for the convenience of the House if I speak to Amendments Nos. 3, 4 and 5. Amendment No. 3 is a small drafting amendment to facilitate the arrival of Amendments Nos. 4 and 5.
The purpose of Amendment No. 4 is to ensure that tree planting under the farm woodland scheme will not take place on upland areas which are of conservation value. Farmers in less favoured areas should be able to enter the scheme provided that it contains adequate safeguards against damaging certain habitats and against the planting of inappropriate tree species.
Upland farmers who have only a small amount of improved land which they need for livestock purposes should be able to enter the unimproved land into the scheme, but land with wildlife habitat ought to be protected. Proposals to plant in less favoured areas should therefore be subject to environmental scrutiny.
The Royal Society for the Protection of Birds supports the amendment, as does the World Wildlife Fund. The RSPB suggests that it is important for the
1142
Government to make clear what types of unimproved land they will consider as being eligible for grant aid. It goes on to suggest:
"In particular, Ministers should specify what vegetation types will be considered, and give details of the criteria which they will apply in judging whether applications for planting on unimproved land should be accepted".
It points out the benefits to wildlife of woods dominated by birch and oak on upland areas of Wales, England and Northern Ireland and of Scots pine and willow in Scotland. The purpose of the amendment is to ascertain the Government's views about offering that kind of guidance to farmers.
I come to Amendment No. 5. Improved grassland which has been improved in the past but is now reverting to rough grasses and rushes can provide important breeding habitats for wild birds, notably the curlew and the lapwing. We are concerned that aid should not be granted for the improvement of grassland which is of importance to wildlife.
I remind the Minister of the balancing duty under Section 17 of the Agriculture Act 1986 and ask for assurances that the requirements of that section will be observed in evaluating applications for grant aid for grassland regeneration. The RSBP again points out that there is a worry that farmers could apply for grant aid under the agricultural improvement scheme for grassland regeneration and reseeding thus destroying valuable habitats, and then apply for grants under the farm woodland scheme. We wonder what steps the Government intend to take to prevent such developments. I beg to move.
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, taken together, as the noble Baroness suggested, these amendments provide that any scheme made under Clause 2 may provide for certain areas of land or certain types of agricultural land to be excluded from it. Ministers already have powers under the clause as presently drafted to make such exclusions and will be doing so. We propose to exclude national nature reserves from the scheme altogether.
Outside the less favoured areas, which we tend to refer to by their technical names of disadvantaged area and severely disadvantaged area, unimproved land will not be eligible for grant at all. If we wanted to make further exclusions at some future date we could do so by amending the subordinate legislation that we hope to bring forward later this year.
The noble Baroness asked me about Section 17. My reply to her is, yes. If I understand her line of argument, she has in mind some of the ideas presented before the adjournment of the Report stage by the noble Baroness, Lady White, who unfortunately cannot be here tonight; that is, they would like to exclude marginal land from our proposed scheme in order to have a more comprehensive and different woodland scheme in the uplands. That is not what we are planning at present, although the enabling legislation would allow us to make different arrangements for woodland in the uplands if we wished to do so at some future date. However, our existing agricultural policies already take into account the need to provide appropriate support to meet the special needs of the hills and uplands. Farming UK, which was issued last year,

1143
reiterated our commitment to that policy. In any event, I am not persuaded that it would be right to exclude hill land from the farm woodland scheme completely.
There is proportionately less improved land in hill areas—this applies especially in Scotland and Wales—and therefore we are setting aside 3,000 hectares over three years for unimproved land planted under the scheme in the DA or SDA. I am sure the noble Baroness is worrying about my references to the noble Baroness, Lady White.
Baroness Nicol: My Lords, the idea of the amendments I tabled is not to exclude all marginal land. If a piece of marginal land had notable habitat interests we would wish it to be excluded. We wanted an assurance that it would be taken into consideration.
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, I think I can very simply say "Yes" and leave it at that. I received a letter from the noble Baroness, Lady White and did not want her to feel disregarded in this whole argument, but I think my answer is, "Yes, yes". I am extremely glad to hear what the noble Baroness, Lady Nicol, says, particularly since at Second Reading the noble Lord, Lord John-Mackie, said that he certainly wanted upland land in Scotland included.
Lord Mackie of Benshie: My Lords, will the noble Baroness give us an assurance that the habitat for humans will be the first consideration and not the habitat for some species of denizen of the rushes? The most important point is surely the inhabiting of the highlands and uplands by the human denizens thereof and not some obscure corncrake.
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, quite honestly I am not sure what the noble Lord has in mind. I should have thought that the needs of the curlew were slightly different from the needs of humans. Having been responsible with another noble Baroness, for preserving the curlew in the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981, I am at a loss to know how the noble Lord equates their needs with those of humans. However, humans can speak for themselves and curlews cannot.
Lord John-Mackie: My Lords, perhaps I may intervene for one moment. I am very intrigued by these amendments. That is why I supported them from the point of view of the RSPB, which is always worried about changes in habitat. In these areas where farmers have improved their land the habitat has changed but the birds and so on have accustomed themselves to it. Now people want to preserve what they were against in the first place. I think we should agree to that.
The second point which my noble friend made is that farmers should not be allowed to improve land and then in three or four years' time apply for an extra grant to plant. I think he is quite right. I know it is covered anyway, as the noble Baroness said, but I think we should be very happy if it were pinpointed somewhere. That was the reason for the
1144
amendments, which are probing for an assurance that these matters will be more clearly pinpointed than is the case here. The words,
"make different provision for different cases",
do not seem to be quite enough.
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, I hope I have given the noble Baroness the reassurances which she required and I hope that she will withdraw her amendments one by one.
Baroness Nicol: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness. Her words are very comforting and I shall read them with great care. Perhaps I may reply to the noble Lord, Lord Mackie of Benshie. I do not think the needs of curlews, lapwings and humans are mutually exclusive. I hope we can all live in harmony with them. Certainly it would not be my wish to exclude humans so that the curlews and lapwings could flourish. I beg leave to withdraw Amendment No. 3.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 4 and 5 not moved.]
7.45 p.m.
Lord Moran Lord Moran moved Amendment No. 6:
Page 3, line 42, at end insert—
("( ) Without prejudice to the generality of the preceding provisions of this section, the Minister may—

(a) provide for the training of such persons as may be so specified or determined;

(b) provide for the giving of advice by such persons as may be so specified or determined to persons who are in receipt of grant under a scheme under this section:").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, the noble Baroness said at Second Reading that the Government, while anxious to keep costs down, would be allocating some additional manpower to deal with the farm woodland scheme, both in the Forestry Commission and in ADAS. This seemed to me good news and her remarks on this were welcome. If the scheme is to work, there will need to be a high standard of such professional advice on woodland design, management and marketing. Hence the present amendment standing in my name and that of the noble Baroness, Lady Nicol.
I believe that experience so far on projects such as Coed Cymru, the Culm Measures Study and small woodland schemes has shown the importance of really good advisory services if farmers are to be encouraged to plant and manage woodland with a broad set of objectives in view.
However, I wonder whether the Forestry Commission and the agricultural advisory services now have the necessary staff resources to cope if a good many farmers apply to join this scheme. I should like to ask the noble Baroness whether she can tell us the number of staff who will be responsible for providing advice under the scheme and what training they will receive in the proper management of woodlands for conservation and amenity. Perhaps I may ask her too who will be the first point of contact for farmers wishing to enter this scheme. Will it be ADAS or the Forestry Commission? I suggest that the agricultural advisory services may be best placed

1145
to take on primary responsibility for managing the scheme. I beg to move.
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, I have listened with interest to the noble Lord, Lord Moran, and would agree wholeheartedly about the importance of adequate training facilities and advisory resources being available to those who wish to join a farm woodlands scheme. However, the position is that Ministers do not need to take new powers in order to make such provision.
With regard to the first point of contact for training, ADAS will be a first point of contact for the farmer, but the kind of training he needs will depend on his particular requirements. If he wants specialist forestry training, a Forestry Commission course may be appropriate. If a general course on farm woodlands is needed, the Agricultural Training Board course may be recommended.
Perhaps I may say that in the last few weeks I have been to see the people at Stoneleigh and I was mightily impressed by the work they do. We cannot assess the number we shall need until we know how successful the scheme is. However, we are allocating extra manpower to the scheme. This will be adequate according to the numbers when we get the figures. If the noble Lord, Lord Moran, wishes for more detail, I can certainly provide it.
Finally, I should just say that at the moment both the Forestry Training Council and the Agricultural Training Boards have asked to be closely associated with the provision of training services to farmers when the scheme comes into effect. This is most welcome and we hope that farmers will not be slow to take advantage of this training. I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Moran, is more reassured about the powers which already exist and will he aware of our plans for the future. I hope the noble Lord will withdraw his amendment.
Lord Moran: My Lords, I am very grateful to the noble Baroness for what she has said and glad that the Government emphasise the great importance of proper advice if this scheme is to work well. I am sorry that the noble Baroness cannot give us an estimate of the numbers who will be required for this scheme but I have noted her remark that the numbers will be adequate. Of course I accept that assurance. I am also glad that she confirms that ADAS will be the first point of contact for farmers wanting to come into the scheme.
I do not want to ask the noble Baroness now to give me the additional details which she said she had, but perhaps she would like to write to me later with those. Having said that, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
The Earl of Radnor The Earl of Radnor moved Amendment No. 7:
Page 3, line 42, at end insert—
("(2A) The appropriate authority shall review the rates of any grants which may be provided for by a scheme under subsection I above after not more than three years have elapsed from the time the scheme became available to the persons to whom the grants are payable and shall review the rates of grants at intervals of not more than five years thereafter and shall publish the results of such review.").
The noble Earl said: My Lords, this amendment would oblige the authority, the Minister, to review the rate of grant at the end of the third year and thereafter every fifth year and to publish the results of such review. Specifically, it does not oblige the Minister to do anything about the review. The hope is, however, that having had his attention drawn to the matter the Minister would look at any grants in the light of the rate of inflation or whatever increase or decrease over the previous three or five years applied at the time. The Minister should also make the result of that review known, whether or not anything was done.
The only other point that I wish to bring out (although I possibly have not got the wording right as I am not an expert at drafting these things) is the word "published". I looked up that word in the Library of your Lordships' House. The primary definition of that word is "to make generally known". That is really what we are after in this case. If, as has happened once or twice in the past, these primary grants which after all in this case must run for 30 years for coniferous woods and 40 years for broadleaved woods are never reviewed they could become quite ridiculous towards the end of the day. It seems a reasonable exercise to look at the grants at the kinds of interval that I have suggested. I beg to move.
Lord Carter: My Lords, from this side of the House we welcome and support this amendment. We have accepted reluctantly but without being convinced by the reasons that the Government have given us why they could not accept the indexing of woodland grants as we suggested in Committee. But the noble Lord, Lord Hesketh, did commit the Government in Committee to regular reviews of these grants. It is hoped that this amendment seeks to stiffen the Government's resolution in this matter.
We all want the woodlands scheme to succeed, but it will only succeed if farmers can be satisfied that the rates of grant under the scheme will be regularly reviewed. As the amendment merely seeks to set out in the Bill what the Government are committed to do anyway, we feel sure that the noble Baroness will be able to accept it.
Lord Mackie of Benshie: My Lords, I too should like to support the amendment, with little hope that the Government will support it.
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, ho, ho ho! I have listened with great interest to what my noble friend Lord Radnor and other noble Lords have said. Strictly speaking, we feel that this amendment is unnecessary because the Bill as drafted does not prevent Ministers from undertaking the reviews in question and we have publicly stated our intention of undertaking them. However, we have obviously taken account of the weight of feeling on this issue that was expressed in Committee. We are therefore prepared to accept the principle that periodic reviews should be provided for in the Bill as this amendment seeks to ensure. However, my noble friend will not be surprised to hear that we wish to redraft his actual words in order to clarify the

1147
position regarding the communication of the conclusion of such reviews. If my noble friend is prepared to withdraw his amendment, I shall take the matter away with a view to bringing forward an appropriate amendment on Third Reading.
The Earl of Radnor: My Lords, I am most grateful for the remarks of my noble friend. She has of course put her finger on a very important part of the amendment which is concerned with communicating the result of any review which takes place. I am quite happy to withdraw the amendment on the basis that we can perhaps have a word about that and bring something to the next stage of this Bill which is satisfactory to everyone. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Moran Lord Moran moved Amendment No. 8:
Page 3, line 42, at end insert—
("( ) Grants provided for by a scheme under this section will be paid only to persons whose plan of operations includes a minimum broadleaf component of two-thirds of planted stock.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, on Second Reading the noble Baroness told us that the Government were:
"anxious to give encouragement to mixed woodland containing a high percentage of broadleaves".
She also said that the Government:
"remain committed to the aim of achieving at least one third broadleaves under this scheme, and … actual planting … will be closely monitored so that action can be taken if broadleaf proportions fall short of what we expect."—[Official Report, 5.11.87; col. 1092.]
In my own speech on Second Reading I expressed concern about the possibility of more extensive planting of conifers, about the proposed 95 per cent. of conifers in the uplands, with risks of increasing the growing and serious problem of acidification, and 65 per cent. of conifers in the lowlands. I said that I should prefer to see two thirds broadleaves not one third; hence this amendment.
It seems to me that the unambitious ratios of broadleaves to conifers proposed by the Government merely reflect the existing pattern of planting. Most of us have seen how unsatisfactory that is. I think that we should set our sights higher and aim for a much greater proportion of our native broadleaved trees. After all, one of the four aims of this scheme as set out in last year's consultation paper is:
"to enhance the landscape, to create new wildlife habitats, to encourage recreational use including sport, and to expand tourist interest".
That aim will simply not be achieved without a very substantial upward revision of the minimum levels of broadleaves. There is much concern in the country about the onward march of conifers and strong support for much wider planting of broadleaves. Therefore there is every reason to amend the Bill along the lines I have suggested. I beg to move.
Lord John-Mackie: My Lords, I am afraid that we cannot support this amendment. There is no question that broadleaves, as the noble Lord has said, are attractive from the point of view of amenity; but I
1148
cannot understand this antipathy to conifers. It is particularly difficult to understand when one thinks of the places that people go to in America, in Bavaria, in Sweden and in Norway to admire the conifers. Some people at long last have discovered that conifers in this country can also be beautiful. If one goes to the Great Glen one can see some of the most beautiful Norway spruce that one could possibly wish for. I do not know whether the noble Lord has been to Grisedale in Cumbria, but he would see some of the most beautiful conifer forests there that he could wish for.
I do not understand people who ignore the fact that 24 million visits are made to the conifer forests of the Forestry Commission and that the Forestry Commission spends 15 per cent. of its budget on recreation and amenities. To try to curtail the planting of conifers is ludicrous as apart from anything else they give a quicker return than any broadleaves. It is not the fault of broadleaved trees that they take anything up to 100 and in many cases 150 to 200 years to mature. Conifers give a quick return and we need that quick return in this country. Now we are buying over £5,000 million worth of soft wood from abroad for all kinds of purposes.
The unemployment situation in the north-west of Scotland where propaganda is being circulated on this subject at the moment is 15 per cent. To in any way inhibit conifer planting would be entirely wrong. The Forestry Commission applies certain conditions to the planting and the landscaping of conifers.
When I first read the noble Lord's amendment I thought that he was talking about a mixed plantation for broadleaved trees. I hope that his amendment would not have an effect on that because one can plant a mix of up to 50 per cent. of broadleaves and conifers. Anyone who wants to plant broadleaved trees would be well recommended to do so. Within three or four years one will have some Christmas trees and in 10 or 11 yeas there will be thinnings for posts. However, those would have to be removed as soon as they began to shade the broadleaved trees. They give a return which cannot be had from broadleaved trees alone for many years to come.
8 p.m.
Earl Waldegrave: My Lords, perhaps I may add a word on the unpopular conifer. We must not exaggerate their unpopularity by saying that they are all foreign Christmas trees. The Scots pine has its origin in this country. A mature Scots pine is one of the most beautiful trees that grows.
Lord Mackie of Benshie: My Lords, I support the comments made by my noble kinsman with regard to mixed plantations. I have planted a number of those on my downland farm. I have always recommended planting rather more than 50 per cent. of conifers to encourage the broadleaved trees to come up when the thinnings are taken out. I therefore cannot support the amendment.
Lord Kilbracken: I spoke on a related subject at the Committee stage and I should like to intervene briefly to support the two noble kinsmen, who sit on either side of me, in their opposition to the amendment.

1149
I know that conifer plantations can be extremely beautiful when planted properly. A great deal of prejudice is wrongly directed against them. The question is whether we are talking about a mixed plantation or one plantation of broadleaves and one of conifers. I dispute what my noble friend Lord John-Mackie has said about having to cut out all the softwoods in order to give broadleaved trees more space to grow. If they are planted as a nurse crop, I think it is often possible to leave a few Scots, Norway or Sitka pine trees to grow on for 60 or 80 years before it is necessary to cut them out. Then the broadleaved trees, which they have helped to grow, will still thrive for another 100 years before they have to be cut.
I yield to no one in my love and admiration for broadleaved trees. I love to walk through a beech or an oak plantation. However, we must consider the profitability of the planting. My noble friend Lord John-Mackie mentioned that softwood trees give a much quicker return. That is true because they are quite often cleared in 35 or 40 years and one has a good return from Christmas trees and the poles coming out in 17 or 20 years. However, I dispute whether, in many cases, a broadleaved plantation is profitable at all. When one takes into consideration the effect of having to wait an enormously long time for a return, I believe that in a majority of cases a broadleaved plantation is not profitable. Another factor which has been mentioned is that softwood is in great demand. The recent hurricane-force winds have turned the timber market completely upside down. However, in general there is an insatiable demand for softwood and there is no such demand for hardwood.
A further point which must be considered is that a great deal of the land which we hope will be planted is completely unsuitable for growing hardwoods. The nature of the terrain must be considered in putting in softwoods, hardwoods or a mixed plantation. Hardwoods need better land and much more attention.
If this amendment were to be approved and two-thirds of all the trees, to qualify for a grant, had to be broadleaved or hardwood trees, that would mean that a great deal of land would not be planted simply because it is unsuitable for the planting of hardwood trees. Two-thirds of the trees planted could not be hardwoods because they would not grow on such land.
I am pleased to find myself in agreement with my Front Bench on this matter, rather than opposed to it as I was on the previous amendment, and I hope that the noble Lord will not press his amendment.
Baroness Elliot of Harwood: My Lords, I should like to support very strongly what has been said by the noble Lords, Lord John-Mackie and Lord Mackie of Benshie. I live in the middle of the biggest forest in the United Kingdom or in Europe. The Forestry Commission is clear-felling in plantation areas which it planted 50 or 60 years ago. It is clear-felling trees for which there is an enormous demand and it is replanting partly with broadleaves but also with an enormous number of conifers. The reason, as
1150
the noble Lord has just said, is that it is an area where conifers should be grown and are grown successfully and very much faster than broadleaved trees can be grown.
On the other hand, it is very nice to have some broadleaved trees along the edges of roads and so on. That is being done now by the Forestry Commission and I strongly recommend the current policy of the Forestry Commission and the Ministry of Agriculture. I think that it would be a great mistake to interfere with that by laying down any suggestions for control. They know best and I should like to support them.
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, I certainly welcome the words of my noble friend Baroness Elliot in her sturdy defence. Your Lordships will be aware that we are seeking to maintain desirable proportions of broadleaves by means of incentives and advice. We have extended the period of payment to 30 years for mixed woodland containing more than 50 per cent. broadleaves, which usually become broadleaved woodland when the conifers are felled, and to 40 years for pure oak and beech woodland.
This amendment, on the other hand, would write into the Bill a wholly inflexible limit which could not be changed except by primary legislation. It assumes that all broadleaves are good and all conifers bad. May I say again how grateful I am to my noble friend Lord Waldegrave for his defence, and for that of the noble Lord, Lord John-Mackie, of the noble Scots pine. The amendment could lead, particularly in Scotland, to the planting of species at least as alien to the habitat as the kind of planting which conservationists sometime bewail, assuming that farmers were willing to plant trees at all under such a rigid scheme.
Perhaps even more important to the noble Lord, Lord Moran, the existing powers in the Bill will be sufficient to allow us to lay down minimum proportions of broadleaves by secondary legislation if, in the event, this Government or some future government decided that that was necessary. However, we are not willing to see such a provision on the face of the Bill and in the circumstances I hope that the noble Lord will withdraw the amendment.
Lord Moran: My Lords, I am sorry to find that I am a minority of one in supporting the broadleaves against the conifer. In listening to some of the remarks made by noble Lords, I feel that it is worth emphasising that we are talking about farm woodlands and not about great forests. I am in favour of mixed planting, as was mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord John-Mackie. It is obviously good practice to plant a nurse crop of larch when planting in many parts of the country. I think that that is a sensible practice which everyone will support.
I also fully agree with the noble Earl, Lord Waldegrave, concerning the splendours of the Scots pine. My only anxiety is that there are many parts of the country which have been adversely affected by badly planted ranks of conifers of uniform age. That has been a great pity. After all, we are speaking of Britain and not of Nevada.

1151
Having said that, I am a bit surprised to hear some of the remarks made by noble Lords in accepting the Government's aim of having one-third broadleaves. It sounds as though many of them would not like that provision. I think that that is important and I am sorry that the proportion is not higher. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord John-Mackie Lord John-Mackie moved Amendment No. 9:
Page 3, line 46, at end insert—
("( ) Where grants have been made under this section, the Minister shall keep under review the effect on the countryside of those grants and of the requirements to be complied with by persons to whom they are paid, and shall publish annually such information as he considers appropriate about those effects.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this is a simple amendment. Many people feel that when we are spending a great deal of money we should know the results of the expenditure, keep under review the areas which have been paid for and allow for annual publishing of information which is considered appropriate. I am sure that the Government would like to do this because it keeps everything in the public eye and keeps the public in the picture on how their money is being spent and whether it is having an effect environmentally, financially or in terms of surplus.
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, I have just agreed, as a result of the advocacy of my noble friend Lord Radnor, to bring forward a government amendment providing for regular reviews of the rates of grant. However, Amendment No. 9 would involve a much greater commitment and one which we do not think it would be right to include on the face of the Bill.
Certainly I do not wish to imply that we shall not be keeping the environmental effects of the farm woodland scheme under review. Indeed we shall. We shall be monitoring the scheme from the outset and we shall be reviewing it fully after year three in consultation with interested parties. I am sure that the statutory conservation agencies and other bodies will be able to help us in evaluating the environmental aspects of the scheme in that review. But of course there are other important aspects to be covered as well, notably patterns of uptake, CAP savings, farm income and employment and timber growing aspects.
Although we shall be keeping an eye on the scheme as it progresses we believe that an on-going review with results published annually would simply generate unnecessary uncertainty about the future of the scheme. As a result we might use up as many trees in the form of paper for the exercise as we planted under the scheme.
Moreover, we are legislating for the long term. Assuming the experimental scheme is a success and we bring forward a more definitive scheme, less intensive review arrangements could be appropriate. The Bill as it stands leaves us with the powers we need to make whatever arrangements seem appropriate.
I hope that my explanation will satisfy the noble Lord, Lord John-Mackie, and that he will withdraw his amendment.
Lord John-Mackie: My Lords, I think that the noble Baroness is probably right that three years is sufficient. I hope that at the end of that time the review will satisfy the noble Lord, Lord Moran, that a lot of deciduous trees have been planted. I look forward to the review and hope that I shall survive until it comes along. With that observation I shall withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Baroness Trumpington Baroness Trumpington moved Amendment No. 10:
Page 4, line 1, leave out subsection (4)
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, if I may, I intend to speak to Amendments Nos. 10 and 11 together. I very much hope that your Lordships will warmly welcome these amendments. Noble Lords will recall that in Committee the noble Lord, Lord Carter, proposed an amendment to Clause 1 which applied directly the provisions of Section 17 of the Agriculture Act 1986. I said then that I accepted the principle of the amendment and would bring forward a government amendment on Report. This I have now done. The amendment introduces a new subsection in Clause 4 applying Section 17 of the 1986 Act to those functions conferred on Ministers by both Clauses 1 and 2. Clause 2(4) thereby becomes redundant.
I consider Section 17 to be a very important provision in that it places a duty on Ministers to balance a number of interests when exercising any functions connected with agriculture. I should perhaps point out that Section 17 of the Agriculture Act 1986 was introduced to give statutory backing to what has been our policy for some time. Our commitment to securing a balance of countryside interests in the development of policy could be seen before 1986. The successful broads grazing marshes conservation scheme was launched in 1985.
Since that time we have given a vivid example of our commitment to the environment by introducing no less than 12 environmentally sensitive areas in England and Wales and more elsewhere. These are specifically aimed at encouraging farming practices which are designed to maintain or enhance the environmental interest of the areas. We are also helping the rural economy through financial assistance for tourism and craft industries to help maintain the viability of farmers in the less favoured areas.
All this clearly shows that we are taking our responsibilities towards rural areas very seriously indeed. I beg to move.
Lord Carter: My Lords, we are very pleased that the Minister has felt able to accept the arguments that we advanced at Committee stage and reflected them in the amendments. As she says, they now make it completely clear that in all the activities covered by the Bill both under the diversification scheme and the farm woodland scheme the Minister has a duty to balance all the interests involved—farming interests, the countryside and environmental matters. We welcome and support these amendments.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 4 [Short title and extent]:
Baroness Trumpington Baroness Trumpington moved Amendment No. 11:
Page 4, line 25, at end insert—
("(1A) It is hereby declared that any function conferred on a Minister of the Crown by or under section 1 or 2 of this Act is to be treated as a function connected with agriculture for the purposes of section 17 of the Agriculture Act 1986 (duty to balance interests when exercising functions connected with agriculture).")
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now adjourn during pleasure until 8.30 p.m.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
[The Sitting was suspended from 8.16 to 8.30 p.m.]

Copyright, Designs and Patents Bill [H.L.]
House again in Committee.
Clause 218 [Powers exercisable for protection of public interest]:
On Question, Whether Clause 218 shall stand part of the Bill?
Lord Williams of Elvel: Before we pass Clause 218 there are two questions that I should like to put to the noble Lord. The first is a simple question of English. In Clause 218(1)(a)(ii) the expression in the Bill as drafted is,
"that facts found by the Commission in. pursuance of their investigations under section 49 of that Act operate or may be expected to operate against the public interest".
I simply ask whether facts can "operate". It seems to me to be a very odd expression. It is not an expression that I recognise in the English language. Perhaps the drafting can be cleaned up.
The second question is of greater substance. The clause deals with reports made by the Monopolies and Mergers Commission under various sections of the Fair Trading Act or the Competition Act. As the Committee will know, the Monopolies and Mergers Commission has been charged under Acts other than the Fair Trading and Competition Acts to conduct investigations into certain aspects of certain matters.
Perhaps I may give an example which I cited earlier today in response to the Statement of the Secretary of State on the future role of the Department of Trade and Industry. The Airports Act contains a provision that the Monopolies and Mergers Commission may be required to make a report. As I recollect, I believe that the Banking Act and the Building Societies Act also have a provision to that effect. There are certainly other Acts. I suspect that the British Telecommunications Act and the Gas Act have some such provision. I speak from memory at the moment but I believe that almost every privatisation Bill that has come before the Chamber has a provision somewhere that as a last resort operation the Monopolies and Mergers Commission may be required to report.
It is perfectly conceivable that in a report under any of those other Acts which are not specified in this
1154
Bill the Monopolies and Mergers Commission might find that a monopolies situation exists in relation to design rights. I am not saying that it will happen but that it is conceivable. I suspect that Clause 218 is rather narrowly drafted. I should certainly like to see the Monopolies and Mergers Commission given the brief that, if it finds any transgression or infringement in any of its reports under any statute, the licence of right or the enforced licence which the Secretary of State can impose should come into play.
If one accepts that view, the subsidiary problem is that the public interest as defined in these other Acts—other than the Fair Trading and Competition Acts—is, as I mentioned in my reply to the Secretary of State, rather different from the public interest as defined in the Fair Trading Act and the Competition Act. We return therefore to the position to which I referred earlier this afternoon where it is unclear what the "public interest" is. It is differently defined in different statutes. I say no more than that. However, I believe that this is a matter that the Government may wish to consider. I do not think that the Monopolies and Mergers Commission or the Secretary of State should be restricted to the Acts that are mentioned in the Bill.
Lord Beaverbrook: I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Elvel. On the point that he raised about the use of the word "facts" and whether facts can operate, I would point out that in Clause 218(1)(a)(ii) the wording is that used in the Fair Trading Act. That is precisely why we have used it here.
On the noble Lord's second point, I think that we should look further at whether there are powers under other Acts which should be taken account of in this Bill. The noble Lord very kindly gave me notice a short time ago that he was going to raise this point. It is an important one and we shall look at this further. I cannot give him any commitment, but we shall look very carefully at what he has said.
Lord Williams of Elvel: I am most grateful to the noble Lord. I hope that in looking at this matter he will also consider the definitions of "public interest" in the different statutes because there may well be conflicting definitions of public interest which could impinge on the powers of the Secretary of State under Clause 218 as it stands.
Lord Beaverbrook: The use of the term "public interest" is very much based on Section 51 of the Patents Act 1977. However, I take the point that there is other legislation that impinges on this matter. We shall carefully consider that issue.
Clause 218 agreed to.
Clause 219 [Undertaking to take licence of right in infringement proceedings]:
Lord Lucas of Chilworth Lord Lucas of Chilworth moved Amendment No. 295:
Page 95, line 22, at end insert—
("(3) A defendant who denies infringement or challenges the validity of the design registration shall be entitled to give an undertaking to take a licence in case his defence fails; such undertaking shall be effective for the purpose of subsection (1); and

1155
if the defence fails the licence shall come into effect as from the date upon which the undertaking was tendered or application for a licence was made, whichever is the earlier.").
The noble Lord said: I beg to move Amendment No. 295 in my name on the Marshalled List. Clause 219 deals with undertakings to take a licence of right in infringement proceedings. My amendment is basically to limit the area of damages. As the wording of the Bill currently stands, in proceedings for infringement of design right and registered design—since Clause 244 of the Bill applies to this clause and to the same concept—the defendant would be obliged to choose between defending the proceedings or accepting a compulsory licence, if such were available. The defendant therefore must elect whether to take a licence or to defend the proceedings. If he believes that he has a good defence he will be faced with a somewhat difficult dilemma knowing that he will not have the option to take a licence if he is proved wrong. This puts the plaintiff at an unfair advantage in proceedings.
Surely it would be fairer if the defendant were to have the opportunity to continue the proceedings, but had to give an undertaking that in the event of his defence not succeeding he would take a compulsory licence. This could be backdated to the date of the undertaking. My amendment would allow that possibility. It would improve the position of a defendant who genuinely believed that he had a good defence, while not prejudicing the position of the plaintiff, who would ultimately be recompensed by the payment of the licence fee if he, the plaintiff, were successful in the proceedings. Nothing would be lost to him since the licence would be backdated to the commencement of the proceedings. I beg to move.
Lord Morton of Shuna: It is no doubt my fault. We have been on this Bill for some time and I get slightly bemused. The amendment talks about a "design registration". I thought that in this part of the Bill we were discussing an unregistered design. I fail to see that registration has to do with, or makes any sense in connection with, this part of the Bill. Perhaps the noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth, will explain that.
It also appears to me—and it may be my fault for not understanding it—to give an opportunity to apply for a licence of right to anyone who chooses to challenge somebody who had the design right at any time rather than at the restricted last five years of the existence of the design right. I may be totally misunderstanding the position, in which case I apologise to the Committee. But I fail to understand what the amendment is designed to do.
Lord Monkswell: I have interpreted the amendment slightly differently, in the sense that I presumed that we had a misprint in the second line and that "design registration" should read "design right". It seems to me that if the clause were agreed to there would be no incentive for a parasitical parts manufacturer to approach the original manufacturer for a licence of right because he could gaily carry on producing the goods. It would then be up to the original manufacturer to challenge him in the courts;
1156
at which time the pirate could say, "I shall apply for a licence of right", and get off scot-free. It would seem to me to nullify the Government's intention to get the two parties together during the period when the licences of right were available.
The other factor I have to stress concerns the safety implications. That is probably secondary to the implications of the clause in terms of the way it would operate vis-à-vis the licence of right provisions that we have already agreed.
Lord Lucas of Chilworth: Perhaps it would be right for me to answer those two questions. On the point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Morton, it does not matter whether the design right is registered or not. All I am saying is that an infringer may well suffer—
Lord Morton of Shuna: It does not matter a great deal if we are dealing with designs which have no registration. I do not understand how they will register anything. That is what baffles me about this reference to registration. At this stage we are dealing with the unregistered design right.
Lord Lucas of Chilworth: The noble Lord may be right and it is possible that I have not set down the amendment as clearly as I ought to have done. I am concerned particularly with the infringement of a design right. It seems to me that two penalties might accrue. All I seek to do in the amendment is to ensure that an infringer suffers one penalty only. It is as simple as that.
On the matter raised by the noble Lord, Lord Monkswell, nobody is suggesting—I should be the last to do so—that anybody should get off scot-free. All I am attempting to do is, as I said at the outset, to limit the area of damage an infringer may suffer.
8.45 p.m.
Lord Beaverbrook: I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Lucas for raising this matter. There are some problems with the drafting in his amendment, but I probably understood the thrust of it correctly. I am sure he will tell me if I have not.
The Government have no intention of forcing defendants to choose between contesting an action for infringement and giving an undertaking to take out a licence, thereby limiting the relief that can be awarded against them. If a defendant believes that he has not infringed a design right and is prepared to argue the case, he should be free to do so. Equally, if an infringement was committed at a time when licences were available and the defendant is willing to give an undertaking to take out a licence, he should be able to take advantage of Clause 219. I can see no reason why that should not apply where the defendant is defending the action because he believes he has not infringed. Indeed, in this case I can see every reason why it should.
In this connection it was our view that Clause 219 as drafted would allow that. Nevertheless, since my noble friend and I both seem to agree what the effect of the clause would be, it would be appropriate for me to consider the detailed drafting in the light of our

1157
debate. Therefore, if my noble friend will withdraw I shall do that and return to the matter at a later stage.
Lord Lucas of Chilworth: I am delighted that my noble friend the Minister knew what I was getting at, even if others perhaps did not. There is no collusion here, I can promise the Committee. I am glad that my noble friend will consider this matter and on that basis I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 219 agreed to.
Clause 220 [Crown use of designs]:
On Question, Whether Clause 220 shall stand part of the Bill?
Lord Mottistone: Clauses 220,221 and 222 provide for Crown use of design right. We shall come to Clause 223 in a moment. Design right should not confer absolute monopoly on the proprietor of the design right and therefore there is no need for provision to be made for Crown use of designs, any more than there is in the case of copyright. However it is recognised that there may be a need for Crown use in an emergency and it is therefore suggested that Clause 223 should be retained. That clause will, however, have to be amended to enable it to stand alone.
It should be noted that Clause 222 extends the right of the Crown beyond the benefit derived by the proprietor of the design right, since the Crown has the power to set aside provisions in licences, contracts and so on relating to the use of any model, document or other information relating to design right.
The power which the Crown is seeking to give itself is a new power. It has been described somewhat vulgarly as licensed burglary. It has applied in the past for patents and registered designs, but not for copyright or the equivalent in design right, which merely protect against copying and do not give an absolute monopoly. If I may sum it up, a design right does not give rise to a monopoly right in the way that a patent gives a monopoly in an invention. There is always another way of designing an article. Under the clauses the Government are giving themselves powers to take the best of British design and have it second-sourced by some overseas manufacturer who will be only too pleased to be legitimately copying, tooling up at the behest of the United Kingdom Government and then supplying the rest of the world. There should be no need for the Government to have such a right.
If the Government want to buy Jaguar cars for their Ministers or pens for their clerks, they should not be able to take Jaguar or Parker design effort and pass it on to a third party without so much as a by your leave. To ask for that right is a monstrous proposition. I exaggerate the situation deliberately because of course Ministers will say on behalf of the Crown, "We should never dream of doing anything nasty like that"; but, as phrased, Clauses 220 to 222 give them that sort of power. It seems to me, particularly as it is a new power which they have never had before, that it is totally unreasonable even to want to claim it, let alone to put it in an Act of
1158
Parliament. I do hope that my noble friend will recognise that it is a monstrous thing that he is requiring and that he will be able at least to water down the clauses that I am objecting to, if not follow the suggestion that I make—that is, to take out Clauses 220 to 222 and give the Crown emergency powers under Clause 223, which would have to be beefed up to take care of the entire situation.
Lord Tordoff: My noble friend would certainly wish to support Lord Mottistone in what he has just said. It used the word "draconian" to me when describing these three clauses. I think the noble Lord, Lord Mottistone, has put the case very well. Why on earth do the Government want to put themselves in the position where they are seeking to take powers under this Bill which they will undoubtedly pretend that they do not want to use and indeed probably do not want to use? There has to be provision, one understands, in emergencies or in the case of war, but that is a totally different situation. The Government under these clauses are seeking to take powers far wider than they should. It is the job of Parliament and particularly this part of Parliament to challenge the Government when they seek to take such powers. Speaking from these Benches generally and in particular on behalf of my noble friend, we certainly support everything that the noble Lord, Lord Mottistone, has just said.
Lord Monkswell: I too should like to be associated with the sentiments that have been expressed. If the Government in an emergency situation needed to take the sort of action in question, I am sure that there would be no hesitation in granting them that power. In that respect I think there are amendments already down for Clause 223 which will confer that capability in a free-standing fashion.
I should like to make two other points. I hope the Minister will not take exception to some of the words that I may use, because I think that one of the problems we are faced with is that sometimes we in this Chamber can understand, although we may not like it, the Government's feelings, the Government's thrust and so on. However, there are other people in this country who will misconstrue what the Government seek to attempt here. We shall be open to the charge that the Government are setting themselves up with all the paraphernalia of a military dictatorship. I made the point that I hoped the Minister would not be upset by the words that I am using because they are not my words; they are a reflection of the state of mind and the attitudes that will be adopted by quite a number of people in the community outside.
The other aspect that I must touch upon is to say that this provision is quite uncharacteristic of the present Government. They believe in the free market ethic and continually preach it. The Minister himself is held to be an arch priest of the free market economy, yet the Government bring forward such a provision. I am sure, and I hope that the Government will take this on board, that all sides of the House will feel that there is a very large question mark over these three clauses, though none at all over Clause 223, which, suitably amended, we would all support.
Lord Beaverbrook: The noble Lord, Lord Monkswell, was quite right when he surmised that I should not necessarily go along with some of the terminology that was used; nevertheless, I assure him that I certainly do not take offence at the words "military dictatorship" even though he may have noted some surprise in my expression when he did use them.
However, Clauses 220 to 223 closely follow the corresponding sections of the 1977 Patents Act and concern what is known as Crown use. The first of these, Clause 220, is the basic provision giving government departments, for persons they authorise, the right to do certain things for the service of the Crown without infringing design right. There is nothing to stop government departments from agreeing terms of use on a voluntary basis, and they would normally expect to do so. But these provisions ensure that the Crown ultimately cannot be prevented from doing anything for the service of the Crown by exercise of design right. Crown use is of course subject to proper remuneration and other detailed provision in clauses which we shall come to later.
I hope that I made it plain in our earlier debates that design right is not a monopoly right but rather a protection against copying and, where there is no choice but to copy if a competing part is to be produced, then there is no protection at all. In spite of this, however, I still believe there are special reasons for including these Crown user provisions.
Take, for example, the needs of our armed forces. If there should arise an urgent need for a particular piece of equipment and the usual supplier be unable to meet this sudden increase in demand, should the armed forces be prevented from approaching another manufacturer to produce the equipment in question? I think not.
While of course it is true that the other manufacturer would be able to design his own piece of equipment as an alternative to that design by the original supplier, it could be totally unrealistic, possibly even dangerous, for the forces to have to wait for an alternative design to be created. I say that it would be dangerous because there will be parts which the man in the field needs to be able to recognise immediately, especially in very difficult conditions. In such circumstances an alternative design may not be readily recognisable as such. By the time a soldier has worked out that the particular part does the same thing as the part it is to replace, it may well be too late.
I should like to stress that this situation where the soldier in the field needs to be able to recognise parts of equipment with which he must be totally familiar arises not only in periods of declared emergency which would be covered by Clause 223. It arises in many situations where our forces are required to operate, and indeed it arises in training. It is of course the duty of the Ministry of Defence to secure the defence of the realm as effectively and as expeditiously as possible, and I firmly believe that these provisions should be included in the Bill to safeguard the public interest.
1160
These provisions do not in any way represent a licence to steal. They are vitally important for the reasons I have given. As I have said, Crown use of the rights is properly remunerated.
Lord Monkswell: I must pick up the Minister on one point. He says that if there should be an urgent need for extra supplies of a particular component, the Government may have to go elsewhere. Surely that need should be able to be foreseen and written into the original contracts for the supply of the components? It would seem to me very strange if the Ministry of Defence negotiates a contract on the basis of a limited supply without any provision in that contract for increasing the supply. I must admit that if that is the case I am utterly appalled because, if we did get into an emergency situation, how would we ensure that we increased the production of the components that were required in an emergency?
9 p.m.
Lord Beaverbrook: I must say that I believe the noble Lord has reached an amazing conclusion. No doubt the Ministry of Defence anticipates the demand for particular components and spare parts, and no doubt they are covered in contracts. I am speaking of the exceptional case over and above the normal requirements for spare parts or extra components and not cases where a particular supply requirement has been omitted. That conclusion should not be drawn at all.
Lord Williams of Elvel: This is all very well and I accept the view of the noble Lord that anything which concerns supply to the armed forces and defence should be exempt from design rights. I have no particular difficulty with that view. I begin to join with the noble Lords, Lord Tordoff and Lord Mottistone, in discussing Clause 221(1) (a) and (b). The Bill as drafted is perfectly clear; to do anything for the purpose of supplying articles for the services of the Crown. It is not simply for the purposes of defence and I believe that all members of the Committee will agree that defence is a major consideration. We should not wish to do anything which prejudices the defence capability of the United Kingdom. This issue goes much wider than that. The clause provides that a typewriter, which may be supplied to the Department of the Environment, or whoever, should not infringe the design right. The Department of the Environment, the Property Services Agency, or whoever, can sell the typewriter without any infringement of the design right. Therefore the issue is much wider than defence. I hope the noble Lord will do the Committee a favour by moving away from the defence side of the matter (with which we all agree) and looking at the wider situation by asking whether there is the possibility that we may cover defence in the Bill, even outside of an emergency. However, to give a blanket authority to all government departments for whatever reason seems to me to be somewhat excessive.
Lord Tordoff: I should like to reinforce the noble Lord's comments. The Minister has put forward a convincing case in relation to specific circumstances

1161
and none of us has disagreed with that. If the specific circumstances might exist, nobody will resist that provision being written into the Bill by the Government at a later stage. However, as the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Elvel, says, the Bill as drafted is too all-encompassing. It covers the whole range of government activity and it is the duty of Parliament to resist the Executive when it tries to take such powers unto itself.
Lord Beaverbrook: I am grateful to the noble Lords, Lord Williams of Elvel and Lord Tordoff, for accepting the argument that I put forward regarding the armed forces. Without commitment, I am prepared to see whether the clause as drafted is too wide on this point. I take notice of the example given by the noble Lord, Lord Williams, of a department that has nothing to do with, or is unlikely to have anything to do with, the argument that I have put forward concerning the armed forces. It is on that basis that we shall look at the matter again without commitment. If something can be put forward by the Government we shall return to the matter at a later date.
Lord Mottistone: I deliberately did not refer to defence in introducing my objection to Clauses 220, 221 and 222 for two reasons. First, the provision enables the current practice of the Ministry of Defence of commandeering designs and much later deciding on the non-market price to pay for them, to be extended to an area to which this practice does not at the moment extend. Therefore it has the kind of powers about which my noble friend was talking in a wide range of such matters. It is questionable whether it needs to be extended in this area in any event. I am not altogether sure that the ministry wants that, but one cannot talk about that publicly. I believe that the argument about defence therefore should be forgotten.
My noble friend has said that he will look at the matter without commitment. That is fair enough because we are speaking of old clauses. Perhaps the argument could be centred on non-defence areas, and on areas where an argument for defence has been extended more widely. Having done that, perhaps the Government may wonder whether defence requires the extra power and they may find that it does not need that either. I hope that there will be a serious look at this matter, more than time would normally permit, because it is a fundamental issue.
Lord Beaverbrook: I should like to make clear to my noble friend the fact that I do not intend to look at the matter in respect of defence or the armed forces. I believe that that argument has been accepted by the Committee, and I can make no suggestion to my noble friend that I shall look at the matter in respect of the armed forces.
Clause 220 agreed to.
Clauses 221 and 222 agreed to.
Clause 223 [Special provision for Crown use during emergency]:
Lord Tordoff Lord Tordoff had given notice of his intention to move Amendment No. 295A:
1162
Page 98, line 23, leave out ("the powers exercisable in relation to a design by virtue of section 220 (Crown use) include power to") and insert ("a Government Department or a person authorised in writing by a Government Department may without licence of the design right owner").
The noble Lord said: It had not been my intention to move the next two amendments in the name of my noble friend Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran. However, in the light of comments made by the noble Lords, Lord Mottistone and Lord Monkswell, I wonder whether they wish me to move them formally in case they had points that they wished to make. If that is not the case, I shall not move the amendments.
[Amendment No. 295 A not moved.]
[Amendment No. 29 5 B not moved.]
Clause 223 agreed to.
Clauses 224 to 232 agreed to.
Clause 233 [Remedy for groundless threats of infringement proceedings]:
Lord Mottistone Lord Mottistone moved Amendment No. 296:
Page 102, line 42, at end insert—
("( ) Proceedings may not be brought under this section for a threat to bring proceedings for an infringement alleged to consist of making or importing a product for disposal.").
The noble Lord said: This new subsection is taken from the Patents Act 1977 and is intended to bring the threat provisions contained in the Copyright, Designs and Patents Bill into line with the Patents Act 1977 rather than the Registered Designs Act 1949. The purpose of this amendment is to make it easier for proprietors to notify potential infringers that they intend to take legal action against them without incurring the risk of a threats action against themselves.
It should be noted that the real damage caused by unjustified threats occurs when they are issued to a manufacturer's customer rather than to the manufacturer itself. The proposed amendment still leaves such behaviour as actionable. I beg to move.
Lord Beaverbrook: My noble friend has raised a good point. It is true that Clause 233 is based on the provisions of the 1977 Patents Act. It is also true that his amendment would include a provision which is to be found in the 1977 Act but not in Clause 233 of the Bill. I must say that at first sight I have some sympathy with his view.
There is, however, a delicate balance to be drawn here which we will need to consider carefully in the light of what has been said. If my noble friend will be kind enough to withdraw his amendment, I undertake to return with our considered view at a later stage.
Lord Mottistone: I am grateful for my noble friend's undertaking and beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 233 agreed to.
Clauses 234 and 235 agreed to.
Clause 236 [Countries enjoying reciprocal protection]:
[Amendment No. 296ZA not moved.]
Clause 236 agreed to.
Clauses 237 to 242 agreed to.
Clause 243 [Registrable designs]:
Lord Beaverbrook Lord Beaverbrook had given notice of his intention to move Amendment No. 296A:
Page 107, line 15, leave out from ("registered") to ("features") in line 18 and insert ("if it—

(a) consists of a method or principle of construction, or

(b) includes").

The noble Lord said: Perhaps I may say a few words about this amendment, which I shall not in fact move. I should just like to explain why.
It was intended to correct a drafting defect in what would be subsection (3) of Section 1 of the Registered Designs Act. The present wording of the Bill implies that a part of a design may be registered in a way which leads to problems. In particular, it could mean that the whole of a design is tested for novelty but only part of the design is registered. The consequence could be that the novelty lies entirely in the part which is not registered. This would of course make nonsense of the novelty requirement in the Bill.
However, here I have to confess that on reflection the approach adopted in the amendment is not ideal. It would prevent the Designs Registry registering any application which includes any excluded features. It would therefore result in unnecessary complication and bureaucracy in the registration process because the registry would have to check every application for excluded features.
We will therefore be looking at this again and will come forward at Report with a new amendment. In the circumstances I do not intend to move the amendment and apologise to the Committee for putting it down.
Lord Williams of Elvel: As the debate is about the Government seeking not to move an amendment, even with the leave of the Committee, perhaps I may be permitted to make a comment. It is wholly out of order and I should not be speaking at all. Nevertheless, as the noble Lord has spoken, I make a point and it is a serious point. I will move the amendment. I beg to move Amendment No. 296A. The noble Lord has sought not to move the amendment but I propose to move the amendment and speak to it.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Viscount Simon): Amendment proposed, page 107, line 15, leave out from ("registered") to ("features") in line 18 and insert the words on the Marshalled List.
Lord Williams of Elvel: I am grateful to the noble Viscount the Deputy Chairman of Committees. I just make one very simple point. In your Lordships' Committee we have had considerable debate on a great number of issues and the Government have taken many things back to look at and perhaps
1164
reformulate. They have come forward with an amendment which they now say was mistaken; that they need to consider it again and then to come forward with something else.
This is going to burden the Report stage of the Bill to an almost unacceptable extent. Already we have in almost every part and chapter of the Bill government amendments with the Government reviewing measures and reformulations. What worries me is that when your Lordships' House reaches the Report stage it will be so burdened with government amendments and government redrafting that we shall not have a chance to discuss the issues which this House really wishes to discuss. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
9.15 p.m.
Lord Mottistone: I do not agree at all with the noble Lord. The problem with the Bill is that it is terribly comprehensive and there are far too many people interested in it. It is not just a question of people but different factions. It is bound to be like this and I think my noble friend on the Front Bench has done a jolly good job in taking back many aspects. I do not think it is fair to criticise him. If this means that we have to spend a great deal of time on Report then so be it. I see to my pleasure that the noble Lord the Leader of the House is here and perhaps he will note that we might need many Report days.
For this sort of Bill, which is not political and which despite its best intentions the other place will not be able to handle efficiently, it is quite right that we should spend all the time that we can spare in getting this right. It is very important for industry and all other interested people. It is important that it should be right. I do not think it is fair to criticise my noble friend. I believe that he should return time and again with his own amendments even when he has not promised them. The Committee should have its own amendments and it should do a really good job on this.
Lord Williams of Elvel: Before deciding what to do with my amendment I wish to say that I did not make my intervention without regard to the fact that the Leader of the House is present. I am merely saying that in this Committee we should all bear in mind that the Report stage of the Bill will in a sense be as important and perhaps as long as the Committee stage. I bear in mind everything which the noble Lord said. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Mottistone Lord Mottistone moved Amendment No. 297:
Page 107, line 20, leave out from ("perform") to end of line 22.
The noble Lord said: In addition to speaking to Amendment No. 297 I wish to speak to my Amendment No. 300 and also I believe that my noble friend Lord Lucas is concerned with Amendments Nos. 297A and 301, which are grouped with these amendments.
As regards my two amendments, Amendment No. 297 seeks to delete paragraph (b)(ii), which introduces a must-match exception. The Committee

1165
may remember that we talked about this when we were discussing Amendment No. 282. At that stage I endeavoured to show that the must-match exceptions amount to a pirates' charter. That is what it will be in this case and so the Bill will be the better for not having paragraph (b)(ii).
As to my Amendment No. 300, following the decision of the House of Lords in British Leyland v Armstrong & Company it is uncertain the degree to which spare parts or replacement parts can enjoy protection by intellectual property rights. This amendment is intended to clarify the situation by making it clear that it is not sufficient merely to argue that an article is a replacement part in order to avoid infringement of a registered design. I beg to move.
Lord Lucas of Chilworth: Perhaps I may give an explanation to the Committee. I do not propose to move or to speak to Amendments Nos. 297A or 301.
Lord Beaverbrook: For the convenience of the Committee I was going to speak to Amendments Nos. 297, 297A, 300 and 301, which is what I believe my noble friend Lord Mottistone has already done.
All of these amendments concern exceptions from registered design rights or indeed the lack of such exceptions. The first of these exceptions is what we have come to know as the must-match exception. This is intended to avoid monopoly effects by preventing rights from arising in circumstances where competitors have no choice but to copy. I have already spoken at some length about this in connection with Clause 192 of the Bill. The arguments are exactly the same here, so I shall not waste the Committee's time by repeating them.
However, the issue is, if anything, of more significance here. The amendment of my noble friend Lord Mottistone, Amendment No. 297, would delete the must-match exclusion from this clause. This would allow must-match designs to be registered and thus acquire a much longer and stronger protection than that given by design right. Since we do not believe that must-match designs should qualify even for design right, it follows that I cannot accept the amendment.
I agree that the exclusion of must-match designs will make our registered designs law rather less restrictive than many equivalent laws in other countries. In answer to that, I would say that we have reviewed the law from first principles and have concluded that what we are proposing is right, for the reasons I have given today and in our earlier debates. In any event, the relationship between registered design laws and spare parts in the European Community is currently being considered by the European Court, so we cannot be certain of the effect of these laws in the future. We remain of the opinion that a must-match exception is necessary, but I have already agreed to look again at the details of the must-match wording in Clause 192. That undertaking applies equally here in Clause 243.
We have gone to some lengths to get the balance right in the designs provisions of the Bill. Subject to further thoughts on the precise scope of the must-match exception, which applies both in Clause 192
1166
and in Clause 243, we think that we have got it right. I therefore hope that my noble friend will feel able to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Monkswell: I rise again on the subject of safety of the consumer and the public at large, and I put this forward in all sincerity. Today it has come through very clearly from the Government Benches that the whole thrust of their line in this Bill is to give the opportunity for supply of spare parts from any source. It has not come through clearly from reading the Bill that that is the Government's implication, and I wonder whether it has been clear to the various bodies which should and would be interested in safety.
Along with all the other undertakings that the Government have given today and in previous days, I wonder whether they would undertake to approach those bodies which are responsible for and have an interest in safety matters—I am thinking particularly of the Health and Safety Executive and the Royal Society for the Prevention of Accidents, and there are probably a number of other organisations—with a view to getting their considered response to these aspects of the Bill. Effectively the import of this Bill is to change the marketplace from a marketplace where the main line of spare parts supply was from the manufacturers of the original equipment to one where there will be a free market, to use a hallowed phrase.
I believe that there are grave safety implications in that. I may be proved wrong, and I hope that I am, but if the Government would undertake to approach the Health and Safety Executive, in particular, to get their response to the implications of this Bill, that would ease my mind.
Lord Lucas of Chilworth: I feel obliged to intervene here because the noble Lord, Lord Monkswell, has referred to safety aspects on a number of occasions, and there are two points which I should like to make in this connection. The first is to reiterate that which my noble and learned friend Lord Hailsham had to say about the area that his legislation covers and the safety legislation which already exists.
The noble Lord, Lord Monkswell, has made one or two remarks about the component industry, and most particularly in relation to motor vehicles, and here I include tractors, diggers, lorries and motor cars. Earlier this evening he used the expression "spurious". I have to repudiate that description. I have been associated with the industry for many years, and spurious parts went out of fashion a long time ago. The noble Lord must recognise that many of the manufacturers of replacement parts under their own brand name manufacture for original equipment people.
I believe that the noble Lord is being obsessive about the safety factor. If one looks, for example, at the Motor Panel Manufacturers and Distributors Association's products—because much of the matter we are discussing surrounds motor body panels—to my knowledge there has not been one single complaint on the grounds of safety in the last 10 years.

1167
When the office of the Monopolies and Mergers Commission considered this matter, and there was also a report from the Office of Fair Trading—I cannot remember the dates offhand, but it was quite recently—the aspect of safety which was brought up was repudiated by those bodies. I do not believe that the Government are under any obligation in this Bill to consider those aspects. I do not believe that the noble Lord opposite has made any case to suggest that the products of patent parts manufacturers, whether they be water pumps, clutches, brakes or panels, have any safety record that gives cause for concern.
Lord Monkswell: I must respond to that. The first response is unequivocally that the vast majority of parts manufacturers in this country do a magnificent job, and they produce quality components. I think here particularly of the proprietary manufacturers. I shall not list the names but we all know them. They are the people who have a proprietary product which they supply to original equipment manufacturers and also through retail outlets.
The noble Lord mentioned the association—I do not know its terminology—and I am sure that it produces good quality components. However we are not just talking about the prestigious component manufacturers which are household names in this country. We are talking about literally any engineering firm which can do a bit of metal bashing and which can produce an article that looks vaguely like the one that was fitted before.
The noble Lord shakes his head, but some of the components used in British industry, as I stressed earlier this afternoon, need highly sophisticated technology. Quite honestly, given the pressures on modern manufacturing design, that technology is sometimes right at the limit of its capacity. It needs high quality manufacturing. The design characteristics are sometimes almost indistinguishable between one part and another, but they can be significant. One of the problems with which we are faced is that the whole thrust of the debate is in terms of fast-moving motor components, but in fact in this Bill we are opening up a whole field, and it is not just clutch plates, exhausts, shock absorbers and car wings. It goes far wider than that. I honestly think that there is a case—I put it no stronger than that—for the Health and Safety Executive to be approached for its response.
9.30 p.m.
Lord Beaverbrook: The noble Lord has made his point. The whole Committee would agree that we are here to consider intellectual property. I understand what the noble Lord has to say about consumer safety. Nothing is more important than consumer safety. We already have a considerable body of legislation on consumer safety and the terms of the new Bill when it becomes an Act will in no way detract from the rigorous standards that are already embodied in our law.
I cannot go further than that. We cannot carry on and on discussing consumer safety. We have to get on with our discussions of the Bill in question. I assure
1168
the noble Lord that the Government are fully apprised of the safety aspects and do everything they can to make sure that the public are protected. The Bill seeks to protect intellectual property and I ask the Committee to carry on its discussions on that basis.
Lord Mottistone: I return to Amendment No. 297, which I moved some time ago. I am afraid that I have forgotten what my noble friend said, but I am sure that it was as helpful as it possibly could be. I shall have pleasure in reading what he had to say. When one's amendment is hijacked for another subject which is not the subject of debate I find that that is pressing the rules of the Committee a little far. I hope that the noble Lord will think carefully before he carries out another hijack, if he feels inclined to do that. I thank my noble friend for what he said. I do not believe it was very helpful but I shall read his reply with care. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Mottistone Lord Mottistone moved Amendment No. 298:
Page 107, leave out lines 23 to 28.
The noble Lord said: I seek here to delete subsection (4) because there is no good reason why a specialist part which has no necessary aesthetic quality should not receive protection as a registered design. It may be important to the customer that the part has a particular shape even though the shape has no special appeal to the eye. For example, over the weekend I was ordering new telephones. The telephones were primarily bought for function, but appearance did affect the purchaser. I should like to say that perhaps it affected my wife more than it did me. The question of colour was a factor though it is strictly a practical instrument.
This argument could also apply to scientific instruments. On the face of it, to those of us who are not scientists, that might seem to be a matter of no importance at all; but a scientific friend of mine tells me that it is important. He would like to consider the appearance of an instrument if he had that option. Another example is farm tractors. If a farmer has to choose between two tractors of identical performance and one happens to look nicer he might well buy the nicer looking one.
Subsection (4) operates against the philosophy of the Design Centre, to which I referred earlier in relation to another amendment, of which the leading light in my day was Lord Reilly. I would not expect him to be here now but I wish he was. Subsection (4) is impossibly subjective. It could be used to exclude from protection ideas which should not be so excluded. It is not reasonable and I hope that my noble friend will agree with the amendment. I beg to move.
Lord Morton of Shuna: I should like briefly to state my support for the noble Lord's amendment. It is very difficult to get a clear meaning from subsection (4). As to whether aesthetic considerations are taken into account to a material extent, the question of what is "a material extent" seems to me unanswerable. I suggest this is unnecessary,

1169
confusing and irrelevant and that it should be deleted.
Lord Beaverbrook: I regret that I cannot agree either with my noble friend or with the noble Lord, Lord Morton of Shuna.
The design right provisions in Clauses 192 to 242 were carefully constructed in order to ensure that functional designs get a balanced form of protection. The reason for this is that functional designs are used so widely that we must ensure that the protection given does not stifle competition. Where designs are chosen for functional reasons, for the job they do, it is important that they are not locked away for long periods. A vital part of this is to ensure that functional designs do not qualify for the longer and stronger protection given under the Registered Designs Act. This greater protection is appropriate only for articles chosen because of their aesthetic appearance, and in our view this Act was always intended to apply only to aesthetic designs of this kind. The wording of Section 1 of the 1949 Act is, however, open to a wider interpretation and it is essential that we close the back door, as it were, and prevent the designs of essentially functional articles qualifying for registration.
I hear the argument that it will be difficult to define whether certain designs have an aesthetic aspect but I do not think that this should cause a problem in practice. We shall study carefully what has been said on that small point and see whether we can tighten it up in some way. On the broader point of the amendment, our argument stands.
Lord Mottistone: I am grateful to my noble friend for agreeing to study what has been said. I hope that that may introduce a chink in the armour of the resistance he has expressed. I believe that we have a point and I hope that it will be taken up. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees: If Amendment No. 298A is agreed to, I shall not call Amendment No. 298AA.
Lord Beaverbrook Lord Beaverbrook moved Amendment No. 298A:
Page 107, leave out lines 31 to 39 and insert ("it is the same as a design—

(a) registered in respect of the same or any other article in pursuance of a prior application, or

(b) published in the United Kingdom in respect of the same or any other article before the date of the application,

or if it differs from such a design only in immaterial details or in features which are variants commonly used in the trade.").
The noble Lord said: With the leave of the Committee, I should like to speak to Amendments Nos. 298A and 298AA. The first of these is an amendment that I have tabled in order to correct a drafting error in the Bill. It concerns what would be the new subsection (5)(a) of Section 1 of the Registered Designs Act. Under the Registered Designs Act as amended by this clause, only "new" designs may be registered. The intention was and is that "new" should mean that something is different from what is already publicly known. However, as
1170
originally drafted, previous applications for registration would have been taken into account, whether or not they had been registered. This would include applications that are withdrawn and that are not made public. The amendment therefore limits the prior applications that are relevant to those which result in a design being registered and as a result automatically laid open to inspection. Of course any design applications which are not registered but where the design is in any event published will be caught by the second limb—paragraph (b)—which in substance is unchanged from the original draft.
If I may now turn to Amendment No. 298AA, that would mean that designs would still be regarded as "new" even if they differed from what is publicly known only in respect of features which are common variants used in the trade. The trade concerned is of course that in which the design in question would be used. So for example under the Bill, a piece of furniture which differed from a known piece of furniture only in that it had legs of a kind which were widely used in the furniture trade would not be novel. This test has been in day-to-day use since the 1949 Act came into force and has worked perfectly well. It seems to me to be quite right. Why should anyone have a monopoly simply by replacing a few features of a known design with variations commonly used in the trade? The Designs Registry has acquired considerable experience in applying this test and in our view it should remain. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 298AA not moved.]
Clause 243, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 244 [Provisions with respect to certain designs registered before commencement]:
Lord Morton of Shuna Lord Morton of Shuna moved Amendment No. 298AB:
Page 108, line 5, leave out subsection (1).
The noble Lord said: This is a probing amendment, the purpose of which is to ask why it is thought necessary to have what is, in effect, retrospective legislation. We are here applying a time limit, which does not come into force, to a design that is registered in accordance with the law which is in force. It would therefore cut down the time allowed by the new Bill. Retrospective legislation is always questionable. The purpose of the amendment is to ask why the Government consider that this provision is appropriate rather than to have the Bill apply to designs registered after the Bill comes into effect. I beg to move.
Lord Beaverbrook: I shall speak to Amendment No. 298AB in the names of the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Elvel, and the noble Lord, Lord Morton of Shuna, and to Amendment No. 298B which stands in my name. Both amendments concern transitional provisions for the Registered Designs Act. Clause 243 would exclude from registration two categories of designs which have hitherto been registerable.
Given that certain categories of designs will in future be excluded from registration, it seems to us

1171
that it would be inappropriate to allow existing registrations of this kind to run on unchecked for up to 15 years after commencement. We must recognise that we cannot merely remove all the acquired rights of such registrations, but we feel that it is important to provide some form of transition. That is why the clause is in the Bill and why I would resist Amendment No. 298AB.
With regard to the details, our original intention was that such existing registrations would have continued to benefit from the monopoly protection provided by the registration for 10 years from commencement, subject to the earlier expiry of the 15-year term and to the design right licence provisions for the past five years of the 10-year period. In other words, these registrations would be protected in much the same way as if they were subject to the design right provisions in Part III of the Bill. However, the clause as drafted gave 10 years' protection from commencement even if the existing registration would have expired earlier. My Amendment No. 298B corrects this defect. Furthermore, the original draft did not apply the design right licence of right provisions in Clause 218 and did apply those in Clause 227—in both cases in error. The amendment also corrects these defects.
However, apart from that, Amendment No. 298B will impose the design right licence of right provisions from commencement rather than just in the second five years of the transitional period. Having reflected, we think that this is necessary to avoid giving continued monopoly protection to those existing registrations which would not in future be entitled to any protection. The licence of right provisions will give competitors immediate access, but the existing acquired rights will be recognised in that the licences will be subject to payment. I emphasise that these transitionals will only apply to existing registrations which would not be registrable in the future under this Bill. All other existing registrations will continue for the remainder of their term in the normal way.
In answer to the specific point made by the noble Lord, Lord Morton of Shuna, that this provision is a retrospective one, I say that I do not agree with that. It only affects acts done after the commencement of the new law. Admittedly, it represents a reduction in acquired rights; but this is always the case in transitional provisions of this kind. For those reasons, I would have to resist the amendment standing in the name of the noble Lord.
Lord Morton of Shuna: There is no point in dividing the House at this stage and I ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
9.45 p.m.
Lord Beaverbrook Lord Beaverbrook moved Amendment No. 298B:
Page 108, line 10, leave out subsections (2) to (5) and insert—
("(2) The right in the registered design expires ten years after the commencement of this Part, if it does not expire earlier in accordance with the 1949 Act.
(3) After the commencement of this Part the following provisions of Part III (design right) apply to the right in the registered design as in relation to design right—

(a) sections 217 to 219 (availability of licences of right), and

(b) section 226 (application to comptroller to settle terms of licence of right);

and in section 217 as it applies by virtue of this section for the reference in subsection (1) to the last five years of the design right term there shall be substituted a reference to the whole of the period between the commencement of this Part and the expiry of the right.
(4) Where a licence of right is available by virtue of this section, a person to whom a licence was granted before the commencement of this Part may apply to the comptroller for an order adjusting the terms of that licence.
(5) The provisions of sections 228 to 231 (procedure and appeals) apply in relation to proceedings brought under or by virtue of this section as to proceedings under Part III.").
The noble Lord said: I have already spoken to this amendment. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 244, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 245 [Authorship and first ownership of designs]:
[Amendments Nos. 298C and 299 not moved.]
Clause 245 agreed to.
Clause 246 [Right given by registration of design]:
[Amendment No. 300 not moved.]
Clause 246 agreed to.
[Amendment No. 301 not moved.]
Clause 247 [Duration of right in registered design]:
[Amendments Nos. 301A and 302 not moved.]
Clause 247 agreed to.
Clauses 248 and 249 agreed to.
Schedule 3 [Registered designs: minor and consequential amendments of 1949 Act]:
Lord Beaverbrook Lord Beaverbrook moved Amendment No. 302A:
Page 140, line 8, after ("by") insert ("the person claiming to be").
The noble Lord said: This amendment corrects a drafting defect. As drafted the Bill states that:
"An application for the registration of a design in which design right subsists shall not be entertained unless made by the design right owner"
What this means is that if someone other than the design right owner applied for a registration the registration would be void. The result would be that the design right owner would not subsequently be able to obtain rectification of the register in his favour. This is clearly wrong and the amendment ensures that in these circumstances the registration will survive and can be claimed by the rightful owner. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Beaverbrook Lord Beaverbrook moved Amendment No. 302B:
Page 145, line 16 at end insert—
(Section 32: power of registrar to refuse to deal with certain agents
. Section 32 of the Registered Designs Act 1949 (power of registrar to refuse to deal with certain agents) is replealed.").
The noble Lord said: This amendment corrects an inconsistency in the drafting of the Bill. It will insert a new paragraph in Schedule 3 providing for the repeal of Section 32 of the Registered Designs Act. All the other repeals of provisions in the Registered Designs Act are provided for both in Schedule 3 and Schedule 7. The one exception is the repeal of Section 32, which is provided for only in Schedule 7. This amendment will achieve drafting consistency and make it easier for a person reading the Bill to establish which parts of the Registered Designs Act have been changed. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Beaverbrook Lord Beaverbrook moved Amendments Nos. 302C to 302F:
Page 145, line 28, leave out ("this Part") and insert ("Part IV").
Page 145, line 39, leave out ("this Part") and insert ("Part IV").
Page 146, line 8, leave out ("this Part") and insert ("Part IV").
Page 146, line 21, leave out ("this Part") and insert ("Part Iv").
The noble Lord said: For the convenience of the Committee I shall move Amendments Nos. 302C, 302D, 302E and 302F en bloc. These amendments are all the same and are intended to avoid any possibility of confusion by replacing the expression "this Part" with "Part IV" throughout Schedule 3. I beg to move.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Schedule 3, as amended, agreed to.
Schedule 4 [The Registered Designs Act 1949 as amended]:
Lord Beaverbrook Lord Beaverbrook moved Amendments Nos. 302G and 302H:
1174
Page 149, line 13, leave out from ("registered") to ("features") in line 15 and insert ("if it—

(a) consists of a method or principle of construction, or

(b) includes").

Page 149, leave out lines 27 to 34 and insert ("it is the same as a design—

(a) registered in respect of the same or any other article in pursuance of a prior application, or

(b) published in the United Kingdom in respect of the same or any other article before the date of the application.

or if it differs from such a design only in immaterial details or in features which are variants commonly used in the trade.").
The noble Lord said: For the convenience of the Committee I shall move Amendments Nos. 302G and 302H and speak to Amendment No. 302J. As the Committee will know, Schedule 4 to the Bill sets out the text of the Registered Designs Act following the amendments made by the Bill. These amendments simply incorporate the text of amendments which I have tabled and which the Committee has already accepted. I beg to move.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
[Amendments Nos. 302HA and 302HB not moved.]
Lord Beaverbrook Lord Beaverbrook moved Amendment No. 302J:
Page 150, line 23, after ("by") insert ("the person claiming to be").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Schedule 4, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 250 [Persons permitted to carry on business of a patent agent]:
Lord Morton of Shuna Lord Morton of Shuna moved Amendment No. 302JZA:
Page 111, line 4, leave out ("individual, partnership or body corporate") and insert ("registered patent agent in the United Kingdom, or solicitor holding a practising certificate in the United Kingdom, subject to any extension of such limitation as may be made by order of the Secretary of State in favour of any state which affords reciprocity of treatment").
The noble Lord said: At the request of the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway, I beg leave to move the amendment standing in his name on the Marshalled List. This amendment is supported by the Chartered Institute of Patent Agents. It is an amendment which is designed to leave out the words,
"individual, partnership or body corporate",
who may carry on the business of acting as a patent agent. Broady speaking, the words of the amendment are that the person should be a registered patent agent or a solicitor or:
"subject to any extension of such limitation as may be made by order of the Secretary of State in favour of any state which affords reciprocity".
The position of this Bill as this clause stands at the moment is that anybody, even somebody who has no knowledge or experience whatever, can apparently practise as a patent agent. Opening up the practice of patent agencies to anybody is, I submit, wrong for two reasons. First, it is wrong because the protection of inventions is a highly skilled and difficult

1175
operation. Also for the protection of the general public or the consumer of the patent system unqualified people should not be allowed to conduct this type of business. The Government have recognised the necessity to restrict conveyancing to qualified people and also to restrict the practice of giving financial advice.
It is difficult to understand how the liberty to give advice or to act for people in patent applications should be completely free. Also it appears unreasonable that nationals of other Community countries should be allowed to act as patent agents in the United Kingdom where reciprocal rights are not afforded to British nationals in other Community countries.
That is the basis of the amendment, and I beg to move.
The Earl of Dundee: The amendment goes to the heart of the Government's policy of opening up patent services to greater competition. In his report on patent agents published in 1986 the Director General of Fair Trading recommended the ending of the exclusive right which patent agents, together with solicitors, have to represent inventors. He concluded that the monopoly was having detrimental effects on the cost of the services of patent agents and many smaller firms and private inventors particularly were being deterred from seeking professional advice. The Government accepted the recommendation and Clause 250 is designed to allow any person, whether qualified or not, to carry on the business of acting for patent applicants.
Before taking that decision we considered carefully the arguments on both sides and the points put to us by the Chartered Institute of Patent Agents. We are aware that the drafting of patent applications is a complex business, calling for considerable skills, and that a badly drafted application can lead to the loss of valuable rights. But it is for that reason that we are anxious to improve the availability of services to small inventors who are most in need of professional advice. Increased competition should encourage less expensive, better services, and we would expect qualified patent agents to continue to play a major part in those.
It is because we recognised the need to preserve the distinct identity and international reputation of the qualified profession that we are retaining the register of patent agents and the prohibition on those not on the register from using the title "patent agent". That means that any client will know with whom he is dealing.
There has also been concern, as the noble Lord, Lord Morton, pointed out, that foreign patent agents would enter the market without reciprocal access for United Kingdom patent agents, leading to a loss of business for the UK profession. The advantages of competition can be expected to outweigh any such losses. But in practice we expect UK patent agents to be able to hold their own against such competition. That has already been seen in work on European patents, on which they are already in competition with patent attorneys from other members of the
1176
European Patents Convention and from which are estimated to come two-thirds of foreign earnings of £30 million a year.
Lord Morton of Shuna: I have listened to the reply which has been read out by the noble Earl and I must say that I found it wholly unconvincing. It seems to me that if anything needs skilled advice it is a patent application. The idea of any Tom, Dick or Harry coming in and holding himself out as someone who is able to give advice and presumably charge a fee for a patent application seems entirely daft. However, as the amendment is in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway, I shall leave it to him to read what has been said and perhaps take the opportunity to come back to the matter later if he so desires. I therefore ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 250 agreed to.
10 p.m.
Clause 251 [The register of patent agents]:
Lord Morton of Shuna Lord Morton of Shuna moved Amendment No. 302JA:
Page 111, leave out lines 28 and 29 and insert ("and such rules shall not be made unless a draft of them has been laid before Parliament and approved by resolution of each House.").
The noble Lord said: This is an oft repeated amendment which keeps coming before your Lordships' Committee. It merely suggests that the rules under this particular section relating to a register of those who act as agents for others in applying for or obtaining patents should be subject to positive approval by each House and not subject to negative resolution. I beg to move.
The Earl of Dundee: With the leave of the Committee I shall also speak to Amendments Nos. 302YA, 302EEA and 302JJA as they also concern the procedure to be followed when rules are made under the Bill.
The amendments seek to alter the provisions in the Bill for making rules concerned with the regulation and practice of patent agents and trade mark agents. They would change the rule-making procedure from negative resolution to one of affirmative resolution of each House of Parliament, as the noble Lord, Lord Morton of Shuna, has just explained.
This Bill contains a lot of provisions conferring order and rule-making powers. In most cases the negative resolution procedure is provided for. The only exceptions to this are where major issues are likely to arise. One example is Clause 217, which permits the making of an order which would exclude certain designs or designs applied to certain articles from licences of right under Part II of the Bill. The amendments that we are considering do not, however, involve rule-making of this character.
Perhaps I may refer first to Amendments Nos. 302JA and 302EEA, which concern the registers of patent agents and trade mark agents. The rules would require the keeping of the registers and contain provisions regulating the registration of persons and

1177
the suspension and erasure of registrations. The keeping of the register and other regulatory matters may be subdelegated.
Although the register of trade mark agents will be new, the register of patent agents has existed for many years and rules relating to the register are currently subject to the negative resolution procedure. It may be that some Members of the Committee are rather uneasy about the power to subdelegate to any person. In fact at present the keeping of the patent agents' register is delegated to the Chartered Institute of Patent Agents and we see no reason why that should not continue, with a similar arrangement for the register of trade mark agents, responsibility for which could be delegated to their institute, which is the Institute of Trade Mark Agents.
However, we feel it would be undesirable for the statute to identify specifically to whom the keeping of the register may be delegated as this would be too restrictive. I trust that the Committee will be content to leave it to the Secretary of State to use his powers wisely in nominating the registration authority, but in any case it its always open to either House to debate the rules once they are laid, and, if necessary, reject them.
I shall now refer briefly to Amendments Nos. 302YA and 302JJA, which apply to Clauses 254 and 260. These clauses permit the making of rules governing mixed practices involving registered patent agents and trade mark agents and others.
Mixed practices involving patent agents are not permitted at present so there are no existing equivalent rules. Even so, we do not believe that there is any reason why the negative resolution procedure should not be the one to be adopted. It is made clear in the Bill what matters the rules may deal with; they are to prescribe the conditions which must be satisfied before a mixed partnership or body corporate is entitled to use the title "patent agent" or "trade mark agent", as the case may be.
There is no need to compel the spending of valuable parliamentary time on the details of the day-to-day running of patent agents' and trade mark agents' businesses. The statutory framework laid down in these clauses gives only limited leeway within which the rules may be drafted. As I have already said, there is the possibility, if it is felt necessary, for either House of Parliament to debate the rules when they are laid. For those reasons perhaps the noble Lord will agree to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Tordoff: Perhaps I may interject a word at this stage. The assurance that these matters can be debated on either a negative or an affirmative resolution has very little meaning for Members of this Chamber. We are constantly told from the Government Front Bench that when secondary legislation is introduced it can be debated by Parliament. The truth is that with a large government majority in the other place, and with the inability of this Chamber either to amend or to vote against an instrument—whether it be affirmative or negative—those words are totally meaningless. Some of us are becoming very tired of the Government hiding behind secondary legislation in this way.
Lord Morton of Shuna: That was a very interesting and apposite comment from the noble Lord, Lord Tordoff. But this is perhaps not the time, the place or the occasion on which to have a lengthy discussion on whether we should or should not be able to amend secondary legislation.
I should apologise to the Members of the Committee for not having mentioned Amendments Nos. 302YA, 302EEA and 302JA. I accept that they were in the grouping. I apologise for not having mentioned them. On the understanding that we may return to this matter at a later stage, I ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 251 agreed to.
Clause 252 [Persons entitled to describe themselves as patent agents]:
Lord Tordoff Lord Tordoff moved Amendment No. 302K:
Page Ill, line 33, leave out ("or "patent attorney" ").
The noble Lord said: I believe that it would be for the convenience of the Committee if with Amendment No. 302K we took Amendments Nos. 302M, 302P, 302R, 302T and 302EE. I understand from my noble friend Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran that a number of solicitors dealing with intellectual property matters have advised him that the use of the word "attorney" to describe patent agents is confusing, in particular to foreign lawyers and to industrialists. It gives the impression that chartered patents agents can deal with all questions of law whereas patent agents are limited by charter to deal with specialised aspects of patenting jurisprudence.
I have to hand a letter from a firm called Bristows, Cooke and Carpmael, who are perfectly willing that it should be quoted in the Chamber. A Mr. Simon Cooke writes:
"On several occasions I have had clients in my office who were annoyed because they had been led to believe that they had been advised by lawyers when in fact they had been advised by Patent Agents. The difficulty arises out of the difference in language between the United States and the United Kingdom. In the United States 'attorney' essentially means a lawyer and a qualified one at that".
The amendment is therefore designed to leave out "or 'patent attorney'" to clarify this matter for those people who are confused. I beg to move.
The Earl of Dundee: With the leave of the Committee, I too shall address myself to Amendments Nos. 302M, 302P, 302R, 302T and 302EE. We do not think that these amendments are necessary and, indeed, they would not have the effect that I believe the noble Lord intends.
Clause 252 is structured in such a way that persons who are not on the register of patent agents must not use the titles "patent agent" or "patent attorney". It is deliberately not framed as a positive permission for registered persons to use those titles, and it does not therefore override any other restrictions, for example on the use of the title "attorney". In other words, if a person is not otherwise entitled to use the title "attorney", Clause 252 would not give him the right to the title "patent attorney".

1179
Furthermore, the proposed amendments would not in any case prevent any extra categories of people from using the title "patent attorney". On the contrary, the amendments would mean that use of the title by any person, whether registered or not, would not contravene the clause. That is a subtle point I know; but I assure the Committee that it is not our intention to alter any existing rights to, or restrictions on, the use of the word "attorney".
This brings me to a point about the title "European Patent Attorney". The noble Lord appears to be seeking, by means of amendment to Clause 258, to remove the right to this title, which has belonged to those qualified to appear before the European Patent Office since it opened its doors nearly 10 years ago. The title has been in general use by members of the European patent profession for all of that time and it would, in my view, be totally wrong to change that now. The title was agreed originally in order that United Kingdom based practitioners could compete on equal terms with their Continental counterparts who are free to use the title. The same argument still holds good today. Indeed, the argument is made stronger by the reputation and good will that have been built up by the profession and which are intimately associated with the use of the title.
Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran: I am glad to agree with the Minister, in so far as he is directing his attention to Clause 258 and my Amendment No. 302EE. I do not quite understand his argument in relation to the other general amendments in my name arising out of the confusion that has been expressed by eminent patent solicitors from the use of the word "attorney" in relation to patent agents. Before I put down these amendments, I informed the president of the Chartered Institute of Patent Agents that I was doing so. When I spoke to him personally he did not raise any very serious objection, in so far as the word "attorney" should not be used other than in the term "European patent attorney". I may be wrong about all this, but that is the present position.
I wonder therefore, having regard to the further amendments put down by the Government which seem to interlace with my amendments, whether this is not a matter that the Government might reconsider.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Renton): Does the noble Lord wish to withdraw the amendment?
Lord Tordoff: I was hoping that the Minister would respond to my noble friend.
The Earl of Dundee: The position in relation to the noble Lord's first set of amendments is that if the reference to the patent attorney is there then Clause 252 can be contravened. If it is not there then it cannot be contravened.
Lord Tordoff: I suspect that the Minister has as clear an understanding of this matter as I have myself. We both have our advisers to whom we shall refer. Perhaps we shall return to this matter at the
1180
next stage of the Bill. It seems to me, very much as a layman on this subject, that clearly a number of people are becoming embarrassed by the fact that people from overseas, especially those from the Americas, have a totally different understanding of the meaning of these words. If that is the case perhaps we should be wise to reconsider the problem. However, if the Government are not prepared to do so perhaps we should read what has been said and come back at a later stage.
The noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor was raising his eyebrows once or twice during the debate, but perhaps that is a standard condition! While the noble Earl takes further instruction on this matter, before I withdraw the amendment I should perhaps ask him whether he has anything more to say.
The Earl of Dundee: I have been able to reconsider the position since the noble Lord was speaking. I should say that I always had sympathy with the noble Lord's point about the confusion which the term "attorney" gives rise to, not least in the United States and certainly in Europe. I am happy to give the matter further consideration.
Lord Tordoff: I am most grateful to the noble Earl. I think that is the most that we can possibly ask on this occasion. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
10.15 p.m.
The Earl of Dundee The Earl of Dundee moved Amendment No. 302L:
Page 111, line 34, leave out paragraph (b) and insert—
("(b) in the course of a business otherwise describe himself, or permit himself to be described, as a "patent agent" or "patent attorney"."
The noble Earl said: With the leave of the Committee, I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 302N and 302Q. Those amendments are intended to have identical effects in the three subsections of Clause 252 that deal respectively with individuals, partnerships, and bodies corporate.
Clause 252 deals with the use of the titles "patent agent" and "patent attorney". It is the Government's intention that even though practice as a patent agent will be open to all, the use of these titles will be reserved to those on the register established under Clause 251. People wishing to offer patent agency services who are not registered patent agents will need to use some other descriptive term such as "patent adviser" or "consultant".
The reason for this decision is that the profession has been regulated for many years and the term "patent agent", although in one sense purely descriptive, has come to be strongly associated with qualified practitioners. In the absence of any specific provision to protect the title, unqualified practitioners would undoubtedly use it with resulting confusion to the public.
Special provisions also need to be made for partnerships and companies practising as patent agents. Until now partnerships and companies have only been allowed to practise as patent agents if they

1181
were 100 per cent. controlled by qualified patent agents. However, under the provisions of Clause 252, mixed partnerships and companies in which not all the partners or directors are patent agents will be allowed to describe themselves as "patent agents" provided that they meet the conditions prescribed in rules made under Clause 254. In this way, firms may be formed which can offer under one roof the full range of services required by inventors.
The existing wording of subsections (1)(b), (2)(b) and (3)(b) is of somewhat broad scope. It would arguably make any unauthorised use of the reserved titles a criminal offence, for example a young man pretending to be a patent agent in order to impress a young woman at a party. That is certainly not the Government's intention. The amendments will ensure that only unauthorised use of the titles in the course of business will be prohibited.
The amendments also deal with a separate point on which the scope of the clause as drafted is not clear. It is arguable that the form of words used in each paragraph goes further than just prohibiting the unauthorised use of the title. "Holding oneself out as a patent agent" could be interpreted as including anything done which conveys to the public the fact that the person concerned offers patent drafting and other services. If the unqualified were prohibited from doing any such thing the whole philosophy of abolishing the patent agents' exclusive right of representation would then be defeated. The amendments, by removal of the words, "holds [himself] out", by specific mention of each reserved title, and by the use of quotation marks, make it clear that it is only the use of the words as such that is to be restricted. I beg to move.
Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran: I support what the Minister said in regard to the amendment when he referred to the use of the words:
"in the course of a business otherwise describe himself, or permit himself to be described, as a 'patent agent' ".
Having regard to the discussion in respect of previous amendments tabled in my name, I do not accept that the words "patent attorney" would be suitable in circumstances except those in the European field. Therefore, as the Minister has been kind enough to say that he will reconsider the position arising from my amendment, which proposes the omission of the words "patent attorney", perhaps he would like to reconsider both these amendments in relation to those words.
I did not understand his reference to the fact that there may be some lady who may be impressed by the use of the name "patent attorney". However, if he wishes to elaborate on that useful support to his argument I will gladly give way. I agree with the amendments, but I do not agree with the inclusion of the words "patent attorney", in view of the arguments that were put to him in relation to the amendments tabled in my name.
The Earl of Dundee: I take note of what the noble Lord has said. In regard to his reference to the use of the words "patent attorney" in this context, I should like to point out that if a qualified patent agent is also practising in Europe he can describe himself as a
1182
patent attorney. The word "attorney" also gives rise to confusion and I have already indicated that I will be happy to look at that matter—
Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran: I am sorry to intervene, but the title is "European patent attorney" and not "patent attorney" per se. The term "European patent attorney" has been accepted by the solicitors but not the words "patent attorney" by themselves.
The Earl of Dundee: I take the noble Lord's point on the distinction between the words "European patent attorney" and "patent attorney" and I shall look at the matter again.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 302M not moved.]
The Earl of Dundee The Earl of Dundee moved Amendment No. 302N:
Page 111, line 39, leave out paragraph (b) and insert—
("(b) in the course of a business otherwise describe itself, or permit itself to be described as, a firm of "patent agents" or "patent attornies",").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 302P not moved.]
Lord Beaverbrook Lord Beaverbrook moved Amendment No. 302Q:
Page 112, line 5, leave out paragraph (b) and insert—
("(b) in the course of a business otherwise describe itself, or permit itself to be described as, a "patent agent" or "patent attorney",").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 302R not moved.]
The Deputy Chairman (Lord Renton): In calling Amendment No. 302S I should like to point out that if this amendment is agreed to I cannot call Amendment No. 302T.
The Earl of Dundee The Earl of Dundee moved Amendment No. 302S:
Page 112, line 17, leave out from ("in") to end of line 23 and insert ("the circumstances specified in section (Persons entitled to describe themselves as European patent attornies).").
The noble Earl said: With the leave of the Committee I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 302U, 302V, 302X, 302Y, 302AA, 302BB and 302DD, as well as to the Question, That Clause 253 stand part of the Bill. The new clause to be inserted is intended to replace the existing Clause 253, and the amendments to Clauses 252, 254, 255 and 256 are merely consequential on that change.
I shall begin by saying a few words about what Clause 253 was intended to achieve and I shall then go on to discuss the proposed new clause. Practice as a European patent attorney is governed by the provisions of the European Patent Convention. This provides that only qualified persons (that is to say, persons on the so-called European list) may be heard on behalf of applicants to the European Patent Office. Nothing that is being done in this Bill in respect of United Kingdom patent agents can affect that basic provision.
At present UK law, by virtue of Section 84 of the Patents Act 1977, lays down criminal penalties for unauthorised practice as a European Patent Attorney

1183
and use of the title. These correspond to the penalties under the current law for unauthorised practice as a "patent agent" and use of the title. As I have said, the European Patent Convention prevents unqualified persons from practising as European patent attorneys. There is therefore no need to provide in UK law for such practice to be an offence and we are proposing to repeal Section 84 of the 1977 Act.
However, for the protection of the public, we thought it appropriate to restrict the use of the titles "European Patent Attorney" and "European Patent Agent" and this is what Clause 253 was designed to do. The clause sought to create new protected titles "European Patent Attorney" and "European Patent Agent", the use of which would be restricted to those qualified to act before the European Patent Office.
We now appreciate, however, that Clause 253, in its present form, is defective. Other provisions of this Bill will permit the formation of "mixed practices" of patent agents and non-patent agents and it is in relation to these that the problem arises. The problem is this. If a partnership includes one or more European Patent Attorneys as well as other partners who are not qualified as such, although the qualified person or people will be perfectly able to practise as individuals before the European Patent Office, the effect of Clause 253 would be that the partnership would not be able to describe itself as "European Patent Attorneys" or even hold itself out as able to take on European Patent work.
This would totally frustrate the objective of encouraging mixed practices. European work is of increasing importance to patent agents, and a firm would be unlikely to sacrifice the right to advertise its ability to handle this work for the sake of allowing non-patent practitioners to join it.
The approach adopted in the new clause which is to replace Clause 253 is simpler. Instead of creating a specific offence of mis-use of a reserved title, it is structured as a derogation from the prohibition in Clause 252 of unauthorised use of the terms "patent agent" and "patent attorney". The new clause provides that Clause 252 is not contravened by the use of the terms "European Patent Attorney" and "European Patent Agent" by individuals on the European list and partnerships or companies including not less than a certain number or proportion of partners or directors on the European list. The number or proportion is to be prescribed in rules made under Clause 254.
Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran: I understand the Minister is saying that after further consideration the Government have considered that Clause 253 of this Bill titled,
"Persons entitled to describe themselves as European patent attornies",
is defective and therefore they have produced Amendment No. 302U to replace Clause 253. I understand that quite clearly and I am instructed by patent solicitors that they agreed some years ago that the phrase "European Patent Attorney" would not be objected to. However, if I may presume to refer again to Clause 252, it is headed:
"Persons entitled to describe themselves as patent agents".
1184
Therefore, what I say—and I hope I do not repeat myself—is that the only use of the word "attorney" should be in relation to the words "European Patent Attorney" under the new Clause 253. Otherwise, I accept the new Clause 253 in Amendment No. 302U.
I did not quite understand, and it is entirely my fault, what the Minister said when he referred to the fact that a certain section of the Patents Act 1977 was somehow going to be eliminated. Will he be good enough to let me know the number of that section, because I missed it? Was he referring to Section 123? What was the section of the Patents Act 1977 that he had eliminated? I was not aware of it and it is entirely my fault.
The Earl of Dundee: I think I can help the noble Lord by referring him to Section 84 of the 1977 Act, which it is our intention to repeal.
Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran: I am very much obliged. Thank you very much.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 302T not moved.]
Clause 252, as amended, agreed to.
10.30 p.m.
The Earl of Dundee The Earl of Dundee moved Amendment No. 302U:
After Clause 252, insert the following new clause:
("Persons entitled to describe themselves as European patent attornies, &c.
.—(1) The term "European patent attorney" or "European patent agent" may be used in the following cases without any contravention of section 252.
(2) An individual who is on the European list may—

(a) carry on a business under a name or other description which contains the words "European patent attorney" or "European patent agent"; or

(b) in the course of a business otherwise describe himself, or permit himself to be described, as a "European patent attorney" or "European patent agent".

(3) A partnership of which not less than the prescribed number or proportion of partners is on the European list may—

(a) carry on a business under a name or other description which contains the words "European patent attornies" or "European patent agents"; or

(b) in the course of a business otherwise describe itself, or permit itself to be described, as a firm which carries on the business of a "European patent attorney" or "European patent agent".

(4) A body corporate of which not less than the prescribed number or proportion of directors is on the European list may—

(a) carry on a business under a name or other description which contains the words "European patent attorney" or "European patent agent"; or

(b) in the course of a business otherwise describe itself, or permit itself to be described, as a company which carries on the business of a "European patent attorney" or "European patent agent".").

On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 253 negatived.
Clause 254 [Power to prescribe conditions, &c. for mixed partnerships and bodies corporate]:
The Earl of Dundee The Earl of Dundee moved Amendment No. 302V:
Page 113, line 12, leave out ("or 253") and insert ("(persons entitled to describe themselves as patent agents)").
The noble Earl said: I have already spoken to this amendment and I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
The Earl of Dundee The Earl of Dundee moved Amendments Nos. 302W, 302X and 302Y:
Page 113, line 18, leave out ("impose") and insert ("prescribe").
Page 113, line 31, at end insert—
("(3A) The Secretary of State may make rules prescribing for the purposes of section (Persons entitled to describe themselves as European patent attornies) the number or proportion of partners of a partnership or directors of a body corporate who must be qualified persons in order for the partnership or body to take advantage of that section.").
Page 113, line 32, leave out from first ("person") to end of line 33 and insert—

("(a) in subsections (1) and (2), means a person who is a registered patent agent, and

(b) in subsection (3A), means a person who is on the European list.").

On Question, amendments agreed to.
[Amendment No. 302YA not moved.]
Clause 254, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 255 [Privilege for communications with patent agents]:
The Earl of Dundee The Earl of Dundee moved Amendment No. 302Z:
Page 113, line 37, leave out ("to which this section applies") and insert ("with respect to any matter relating to the protection of inventions, designs or technical information, or the protection of trade marks or service marks,").
The noble Earl said: With the leave of the Committee, I should like to speak to Amendments Nos. 302Z and 302CC together. As will be apparent, they are very much interconnected.
Clause 255 relates to privilege for communications with registered patent agents. It extends the privilege, which presently covers patent proceedings only, to other matters in which patent agents have expertise. These matters are currently listed in subsection (3) of the clause.
There is, however, a lacuna in the list of topics covered. This can best be explained by an example. Suppose a client goes to a patent agent. He may think he has made an invention, but the important thing is that he has technical information which he wishes to protect. The agent may quite legitimately advise that applying for a patent is not the best way of protecting the client's interests and that he should rely rather on the law of confidentiality—in other words "trade secrets" or "know-how".
Depending on the circumstances, such advice may not be included in the scope of the existing wording of Clause 255(3), which would lead to the result that it would not be clear in advance what communications were going to be privileged. That may well be unavoidable in some situations where the initial problem on which advice is sought is on the edge of the patent agent's field of expertise, but it is obviously undesirable in the context of something so fundamental to a patent agent's work as the protection of an invention. The amendment therefore substitutes for patents in the list of topics covered by privilege the protection of inventions and it adds technical information. The latter has been introduced to make sure that information which falls short of the standard of inventiveness necessary to support a patent application is still included. This is important because a client may well not appreciate that
1186
commercially valuable technical information does not amount to an invention until he has consulted a patent agent.
The moving of the list of topics covered from subsection (3) to subsection (1) and other changes to the wording used is primarily to improve the presentation of the clause and is not intended to have any effect on the scope.
One obvious change is that the word "copyright" no longer appears in the list. I should like to emphasise, however, that this does not mean that we have changed our minds about the degree to which patent agents are qualified to advise on copyright matters. Patent agents must have a considerable depth of knowledge about certain aspects of the subject, primarily arising from their work in advising on the protection of inventions, designs and trade and service marks.
One clear example would be that of a client trying to defend his interests against a competitor who is passing off his goods as those of the client. It would be essential for the advice given to cover all the possible courses of action. This may well include action for breach of copyright in packaging or labels as well as straightforward trade mark, design or patent infringement. Another example would be in the interaction between copyright, designs and patent laws as they relate to functional and aesthetic articles. Significant changes are being made to this area in this very Bill.
So we clearly accept that patent agents can and do give competent advice on certain aspects of copyright. However, the wording adopted no longer makes it necessary for copyright to be specifically mentioned. The examples I have just mentioned would all fall within the definition of,
"any matter relating to the protection of inventions, designs, technical information and trade or service marks".
Questions of pure copyright would not, of course, be covered but such matters are generally acknowledged as falling outside the normal range of expertise of patent agents. I beg to move.
Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran: I welcome any attempt that has been made to grant privilege to the patent agents who have to deal with intellectual property matters wider than pure patents.
Amendment No. 302Z, in addition to technical innovation, designs and protection of inventions, deals specifically with the protection of trade marks. The Minister did not emphasise that trade marks were included. In fact when he was referring to this amendment he left out the words "trade marks", although later he did bring in those words.
In view of the desire of the Government to introduce an amendment involving trade marks, with the leave of the Committee I must presume to refer to my proposed amendment in the Title of the Bill, No. 317, and also perhaps refer to Amendment No. 315A. Trade marks are referred to in a number of clauses of this Bill. Clause 259 refers to trade marks; Clause 260 refers to trade marks and the trade marks register. Clause 264 and also Clause 270(4) refer to intellectual property, which includes trade marks.

1187
I have to declare an interest at this stage. I am an honorary associate of the Institute of Trade Mark Agents. Therefore I feel that the Title of the Bill should include the words "trade marks". So often trade marks are overlooked, even by great industrialists in this country, and are wrongly equated with patents. I am glad to see the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Elvel, nodding his head in support. At this stage I should just like to bring to the notice of the Committee the fact that I have asked for a modification of the Title of this Bill to include the words "trade marks".
I shall not waste the time of the Committee on Amendment No. 315A, because that is an attempt to get rid of a provision of the Trade Marks Act of 1938, Section 28(6), which deals with the trafficking in trade marks. I am sure that the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor will forgive me if I quote the words of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Bridges, in a recent case reported in 1984, Volume 1, All England Law Reports, page 428, which is the case of Holly Hobbie. In America character merchandising is well known and successful, but a great deal of the 1938 Act was drafted by a late uncle of my wife, Mr. Cox, and he told me about introducing this cautious Section 28(6) to avoid trafficking in trade marks.
The noble and learned Lord, Lord Bridges, said about this section:
"This section has become a complete anachronism, and the sooner it is repealed the better".
In view of those recent words of the noble and learned Lord, I felt that I ought to include such an amendment in this Bill. I realise that there has been correspondence about this matter with the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry and he takes the view that it is not appropriate to make this kind of amendment in the Bill because of the wider implication perhaps of trade marks which might arise. But I felt it my duty, as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Bridges, says that this is now a complete anachronism and the sooner it is repealed the better, to bring the amendment forward.
Character merchandising is an important matter for competition in this country. It is very successful in the United States, and by leaving this subsection of Section 28 of the Trade Marks Act in we are just giving rise to more litigation without helping competition, as this Government wish.
The Earl of Dundee: I am grateful to the noble Lord. If he will allow us to do so, I think perhaps the best thing to do is to consider Amendments Nos. 315A and 317 in Schedule 7 and the Title when we get there in a moment or two.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
The Earl of Dundee The Earl of Dundee moved Amendments Nos. 302AA, 302BB and 302CC:
Page 113, line 40, at end insert ("or as a firm carrying on the business of a European patent attorney").
Page 113, line 42, at end insert ("as a company carrying on the business of a").
Page 114, line 6, leave out subsection (3).
The noble Earl said: I beg to move Amendments Nos. 302AA, 302BB and 302CC en bloc.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Clause 255, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 256 [Power of comptroller to refuse to deal with certain agents]:
The Earl of Dundee The Earl of Dundee moved Amendment No. 302DD:
Page 114, line 21, leave out ("or 253").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 256, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 257 agreed to.
Clause 258 [Effect of enactments relating to preparation of documents, &c.]:
[Amendment No. 302EE not moved.]
Clause 258 agreed to.
Clause 259 [The register of trade mark agents]:
[Amendment No. 302EEA not moved.]
Clause 259 agreed to.
Clause 260 [Unregistered persons not to be described as registered trade mark agents]:
The Earl of Dundee The Earl of Dundee moved Amendment No. 302FF:
Page 116, line 13, after ("(b)") insert ("in the course of a business").
The noble Earl said: With the leave of the Committee I should like to address Amendments Nos. 302FF, 302GG and 302HH. Clause 260 creates offences of falsely claiming to be a registered trade mark agent and the three amendments in question relate to the three subsections dealing respectively with individuals, partnerships and bodies corporate.
Paragraphs (a) of each of subsections (1), (2) and (3) relate to the use of the actual words "registered trade mark agent" in the carrying on of a business. Paragraph (b) of each of the subsections relates to any other form of description which is suggestive of being a registered trade mark agent. In these cases, however, there is no limitation to use in the course of business. We now recognise that this is too broad. For example, and as I explained a moment ago in the context of the previous amendment, it would catch a totally inconsequential remark made by a person in a social context. These amendments are equivalent to those which the Committee earlier agreed to make to Clause 252 in respect of patent agents.
The amendments proposed will make each paragraph (b) consistent with paragraph (a) by limiting the scope of the offence to descriptions made in the course of business. I beg to move.
10.45 p.m.
Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran: The only matter I have been asked to raise is the position of an individual trade mark agent. Sometimes an individual acts as a trade mark agent. Would that be considered to be an operation in the course of a business? I wanted to

1189
raise that matter in order to get it clarified. I refer to the position of an individual acting as a trade mark agent.
The Earl of Dundee: Yes, the noble Lord is correct.
Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran: Thank you.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
The Earl of Dundee The Earl of Dundee moved Amendments Nos. 302GG and 302HH:
Page 116, line 18, after ("(b)") insert ("in the course of a business").
Page 116, line 27, after ("(b)") insert ("in the course of a business").
On Question, amendments agreed to.
The Earl of Dundee The Earl of Dundee moved Amendment No. 302JJ:
Page 116, line 36, leave out ("impose requirements") and insert ("prescribe conditions").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 302 JJA not moved.]
Clause 260, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 261 agreed to.
Clause 262 [Offences committed by partnerships and bodies corporate]:
Lord Williams of Elvel Lord Williams of Elvel moved Amendment No. 302JJ B:
Page 117, line 36, leave out (", secretary or other similar officer") and insert ("or secretary").
The noble Lord said: In moving this amendment, with the leave of the Committee, I shall also speak to Amendments Nos. 302JJC and 312F.
Lord Mottistone: I am proposing to take Amendments Nos. 312A to 312N together but quite separately. Therefore, let us forget Amendment No. 312F in this category.
Lord Williams of Elvel: I shall happily forget Amendment No. 312F.
We are dealing here with offences committed by a body corporate. I have problems with the wording of subsection (5). The amendments address themselves to this problem. The first amendment seeks to delete "other similar officer" of the body. I have no idea what that could possibly mean. I can understand what a director of a company is. I can understand what a secretary of a company is. Those are formal positions. However, I do not know what "other similar officer" means. If the noble Earl can give me a satisfactory reply, I shall be happy to withdraw the amendment. I do not understand what it means. Does it mean a finance manager or a bottle washer? What is a similar officer?
Amendment No. 302JJC is somewhat more important. It is more substantial. It seeks to delete the expression,
"or any person purporting to act in such a capacity".
I do not know how a person can purport to act in the capacity of a director or secretary if he is not a director or secretary. I do not see why a body corporate should be guilty of an offence if the person purporting to act, quite falsely presumably because that is the meaning of the word purporting, commits
1190
an offence. I do not think that the wording of the clause is quite as the Government would wish. I beg to move.
Lord Mottistone: I have been persuaded to speak to Amendment No. 312F at this stage. I do not have much to say about the amendment. It is designed to avoid a loophole by means of which a defendant may seek to evade liability on the grounds that he is a manager and not a director. This would bring subsection (4) into line with similar provisions in existing statutes—for example, Section 20(1) of the Trade Descriptions Act.
The Earl of Dundee: I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Mottistone and to the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Elvel. The amendments deserve an explanation. With the leave of the Committee I shall speak to Amendments Nos. 302JJB, 302JJC and 312F together, as they all relate to virtually identical provisions to be found in Clauses 262 and 272.
The effect of these provisions is that, where a body corporate has committed an offence, certain individuals connected with the body who have consented to, or connived at, the offence are also guilty of it. Equivalent provisions occur in numerous statutes and serve a useful purpose in discouraging those running companies from procuring them to commit certain criminal offences. However, such provisions usually provide for the liability of "any director, manager, secretary or other similar officer", while the provisions in the Bill omit any specific reference to "managers".
The term "manager" is a relic from earlier years when the organisational structure of companies tended to be different from what it is today. It was once common for the board of directors of a company to delegate the running of the business of the company to a "manager", who would not himself have a seat on the board. However, in most modern companies the person or persons responsible for running the business of the company are likely to have been appointed to the board of directors. As a result, in most cases a person who falls within the term "manager" will anyway fall within a provision of the type under discussion by virtue of being a director.
It was, therefore, our initial view that the term "manager" should be omitted from the provisions in the Bill on the ground that it was otiose. However, on reflection, we feel that in the unusual situation where a company has an old-style manager who has not been appointed to the board it is appropriate that he should fall within the ambit of these provisions. We will therefore be making the appropriate amendments to Clause 262 and to Clauses 101, 182 and paragraph 23 of Schedule 3, which contain equivalent provisions. My noble friend Lord Cullen of Ashbourne has already tabled the necessary amendment to Clause 272 and I hope that when we arrive at Amendment No. 312F he will move it so that we can accept it.
I should now like to turn specifically to the amendments tabled by the noble Lords, Lord Williams of Elvel and Lord Morton of Shuna.

1191
Amendment No. 302JJB would have the effect of deleting the words "or other similar officer" from Clause 262(5). In the case of a company incorporated under the Companies Act, we do not think that the amendment would have any effect. The Companies Act 1985 provides that every company must have at least one director and a secretary and that the term "director" includes,
"any person occupying the position of director by whatever name called".
Thus, those responsible for running such a company will almost inevitably be covered by the terms "director" or "secretary". Bearing in mind the principle that a provision in a statute which imposes a penalty must be construed strictly, it is unlikely that anyone would fall within the words "or other similar officer".
However, Clause 262(5) covers not only companies incorporated under the Companies Acts but "bodies corporate" in general. This term covers a wide range of bodies, including statutory corporations, companies incorporated by charter and industrial and provident societies. Such bodies may be run by persons with titles other than "director" or "secretary" and the words "or other similar officer" are intended to ensure that they fall within the provisions of Clause 262.
Amendment No. 302JJC would delete from subsection (5) the words,
"or a person purporting to act in any such capacity".
This is standard wording for provisions of the type under discussion, and we believe that it was originally drafted in response to a case in which a defendant, who had been acting as a director, had escaped liability by establishing that his appointment as such was invalid. We think that it is right that such a person should fall within the ambit of Clause 262.
Lord Williams of Elvel: I am most grateful to the noble Earl for his response. I think I start to understand why "or other similar officer" is included in the clause. It is clear that there are bodies corporate that are not incorporated under the Companies Act. As the noble Earl said, although this would have limited effect under the Companies Act, it may be that friendly societies or provident societies have officers who are similar to director or secretary.
However, I find the wording a little odd. It took the Minister's response to convince me, as a layman, that there is some sense in it. I am always troubled when, as a layman, I cannot immediately understand the wording of a Bill. But, nevertheless, I accept what the noble Earl has said, and it is now on the record.
I am more worried about the problem of,
"a person purporting to act in any such capacity".
I am sure that the noble Earl will understand that a body corporate, however incorporated, should not be responsible for offences committed by someone who, for no reason, pretends to be a director, secretary or a senior officer. For instance, if the noble Earl were to pretend, or purport, to be a director of
XYZ plc—I am sure everyone would take his assertion on his own word—and he were to commit an offence under this clause, it appears from a
1192
layman's reading of the clause that the body corporate would be caught as well as the noble Earl. I find that rather extraordinary.
I understand what the noble Earl is saying. The wording occurs in other statutes. It is accepted, and it is designed to catch people who are, or might be, directors who seek to avoid being convicted by resigning or in some way vacating their office. Nevertheless, I still have a problem with the wording which I hope the noble Earl understands.
The Earl of Dundee: I should be the first to admit that at first sight the phrase that we are discussing appears rather woolly. But, as I say, there is the precedent of liability having been escaped. If we do not use this wording there is a loophole. Clause 262(5) does not impose liability upon a corporation; it merely provides that if a corporation is in any way guilty of an offence then certain of its officers will also he guilty.
Lord Williams of Elvel: Or people purporting to be officers. But I do not think there is much merit in pursuing this discussion at this point in time. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 302JJC not moved.]
Clause 262 agreed to.
Clause 263 agreed to.
11 p.m.
Clause 264 [Patents county courts to exercise special jurisdiction]:
Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran moved Amendment No. 302KK:
Page 119, line 16, leave out from ("designs") to ("and") in line 18.
The noble Lord said: In moving this amendment I should like to make a few introductory remarks to the effect that we are now entering on to Part VI of the Bill. This section is headed "Patents" and "Patents county court". To me this is a very important section indeed because it is making an attempt to cheapen litigation. A matter with which I have been personally concerned for many, many years is how one can cheapen litigation so that smaller firms in particular can have justice in relation to their intellectual property.
My welcome for this part of the Bill is supported by the patent solicitors, for instance, who have told me that they would welcome my support for the Government's proposals in paragraphs 264 and 265:
"as they are seen as a means of cheapening patent litigation for the smaller dispute while retaining the jurisdiction within the Civil Courts system".
But that support is qualified as regards Clause 264 by my amendment.
This clause deals with patents courts. It is entitled in the margin,
"Patents county courts to exercise special jurisdiction",
and the new section is entitled,
"Proceedings as to patents, designs &c."

1193
New Section 31A(2)(a) states that a patents court:
"(a) shall exercise such jurisdiction (its 'special jurisdiction') as to such proceedings relating to patents and designs".
Why does it not stop there? Why should it include:
"or other intellectual property and related matters as may be prescribed in the order"?
I have in my hand a letter which was written to me when I was at a trade mark conference in Budapest by Mr. Richard Price of Woodham Smith, solicitors. He says:
"I am surprised that the special jurisdiction of the patents county court is planned to be so wide.
The provision was meant to reduce the costs and delay of patent litigation. The jurisdiction should therefore be so limited with the words 'or other intellectual property and related matters as may be prescribed in the order'".
Therefore I beg to move that there should be deleted from Clause 264 the proposal that a new section should be inserted after Section 31 of the County Courts Act 1984, Section 31A(2)(a). This would delete and limit the scope of the patents county court proposed by the elimination of the words,
"or other intellectual property and related matters as may be prescribed in the order".
In other words I move that the jurisdiction of a patents county court should be limited to proceedings related to patents and designs and not to other intellectual property. I beg to move.
The Lord Chancellor: I am very grateful to the noble Lord for welcoming these clauses, which are designed to render certain litigation less expensive. I am glad to know that after such a long time devoted to that object he is now able to join with us in supporting our proposals in general terms.
As regards the particular point that he has raised, I should point out that to delete all that he seeks to delete would have the effect that the patents county court would have jurisdiction in proceedings relating to patents and designs. It is necessary to specify which proceedings relating to patents and designs the court shall have jurisdiction in. The idea is that they should be towards the lower end of that litigation. So the last part of this provision is necessary in any event.
The noble Lord's amendment probably deletes more perhaps than he originally intended, because the word "such" in front of "proceedings" has to have some other words to qualify it; otherwise the provision does not make sense. But the proposal that the Government have in mind is on the lines of the report which has been produced by the Permanent Secretary in the Lord Chancellor's Department and his colleagues.
Members of the Committee will recollect, I hope, that the view the majority of that committee took was that this court should be able to deal with the Patents Act's actions including the Community Patent Convention and the Registered Designs Act and that it should also be able to deal with cases concerning the unregistered design right proposed in the White Paper. These are all connected because they have an engineering element in common and common to patents and designs.
The words used in the provision are:
"patents and designs or other intellectual property".
1194
So I think the generality of the word "other" would be controlled by the phrase "patents and designs". However, in view of what the noble Lord has said and his doubt about this provision, notwithstanding his support for the general provisions, I shall certainly look at this again. But I cannot accept the amendment in full for the reason that I explained at the outset. I hope that the noble Lord in the light of that explanation may feel able to withdraw this amendment.
Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran: I am very much obliged to the noble and learned Lord for what he has said. I forgot to say in my opening remarks that the patents solicitors and my friends at the Patent Bar would like to congratulate Sir Derek Oulton personally on the great work that he has done in this matter and the secretary of that committee, who has worked so hard and who recently sent me a copy of the final report.
Having regard to what the noble and learned Lord has said, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment, but it may be necessary to raise the matter again on Report.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
On Question, Whether Clause 264 shall stand part of the Bill?
Lord Morton of Shuna: On the question that this clause shall stand part of the Bill I wish to raise the matter of what is in the report of Sir Derek Oulton's committee. I do so in the way not of criticising the intention behind Clause 264 but perhaps of making some suggestions that what is mentioned in the report does not go quite far enough to be effective.
It appears that the suggestion that there should be a county court judge in charge of an innovative patent county court raises certain practical difficulties as I would not persuade anybody with experience of the Patent Bar, and fairly good experience at that, to take that office rather than either continue in practice at the Patent Bar or hope for appointment to the High Court Bench. Perhaps the answer is to use somebody who is a patent judge in the High Court and delegate him to deal with the county court as well.
It also appears that there is a difficulty if the county court procedure is to be effective—we hope it would be so—in that the right to choose should be restricted to the plaintiff. It could well be that the plaintiff was the person who had the money and would therefore wish to force the matter into the more expensive court. I suggest that there should be power in the court to decide, on the application of either the plaintiff or the defendant, as to the appropriate court.
The same considerations should apply on the question of rights of appeal. If one has a right of appeal from the county court to the High Court, the Court of Appeal and the House of Lords, one is not doing much to reduce the expense of litigation. In fact, it is possible that the expense will be increased. Those comments are made with all the diffidence that a Scot who has no experience of English procedure feels. However, having had the advantage of having seen the report prepared by the judge, Lord Jauncey, who, I am delighted to say, is to join the House as a

1195
Member of the Judicial Committee, and who will presumably be here at later stages of the Bill to add far more weighty advice on the matter, perhaps a slightly more robust view than that put forward by the report may be considered.
Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran: In view of the opening remarks of the noble Lord who has just sat down when he said that Sir Derek Oulton's report had not gone far enough, I am tempted to agree with him. As a practising member of the Patent Bar for many years, it seemed to me that one of the difficulties about costs in patent cases was that the Court of Appeal, in a difficult case, did not have a member of the Patent Bar or a person with experience in the field.
There has been much talk with predecessors of the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor over a period of at least 20 years, concerning the suggestion that there should be somebody with some knowledge of patent matters called to the Court of Appeal occasionally. I have had the experience of winning a case hands down in the court of first instance with a patent judge. That judge would be dealing with experiments. He, with his scientific knowledge, would know that many of the experiments, which are very costly, should not he treated at great length.
When such a case went to the Court of Appeal subsequently, the Court of Appeal quite rightly said: "We do not know what the judge was talking about. What were the experiments?". Therefore, a great deal of time was taken in instructing the judges in the Court of Appeal on what the experiments were about. I do not want to cite the names of particular cases which I have in mind and of which I have had experience as a member of the Bar. However, if there had been a member of that court with experience of patent cases and the way in which experiments are called for on both sides, which is sometimes intended to delay matters—perhaps I exaggerate the position; some people may think that it was proper to produce the experiments—such cases would not have been as lengthy as they were. I therefore agree with the noble Lord who has just sat down that perhaps—
A noble Lord: Lord Morton of Shuna.
Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran: Thank you very much. I am fully aware of his name; surely it is sufficient for me to call him "the noble Lord who has just sat down"! I know the name of Lord Morton of Shuna very well. I am sure that he does not mind. I feel that there are certain aspects which practising members of the Bar could suggest in any subsequent consideration of how to reduce expenditures in patent cases. One would be that, if a case is to go to the Court of Appeal, somebody should be there who has some experience of patent practices.
11.15 p.m.
The Lord Chancellor: I am grateful for the constructive approach taken to these clauses by the noble Lord, Lord Morton of Shuna—I shall refer to him in that way—and the noble Lord, Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran—and I shall not refer to him in the alternative way.
1196
I agree that the problem of making inexpensive patent litigation is a difficult one. The fact that the noble Lord, Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran, has devoted a considerable part of his experience to that problem, and to date has not been particularly successful, shows how difficult it is. However, we are very grateful for the suggestions that have been made and shall certainly look at them carefully.
It occurs to me that in order to take up the suggestion made by the noble Lord, Lord Morton of Shuna, it may be necessary to put some criteria into the Bill determining whether or not a particular type of action shall go to the county court or the High Court in order to be independent of the particular choice of the parties.
The problem of securing personnel for the court is, as he said, not altogether an easy one. I have been thinking about that with my colleagues, and considering what could be done about it. I am very grateful for what he says. I also join with him in the welcome that he has given to the noble Lord, Lord Jauncey. Whether he will be with us when we reach the next stage of this Bill I cannot be certain; but I certainly hope that by that time he will be a member of your Lordships' Chamber.
With those observations, I commend to the Committee, the clauses as presently in the Bill, but undertake to consider the constructive suggestions that have been made with a view perhaps to elaborating these clauses by the time we come to the next stage.
Clause 264 agreed to.
Clause 265 agreed to.
Clause 266 [Restriction of acts authorised by certain licences]:
Lord Lucas of Chilworth Lord Lucas of Chilworth moved Amendment No. 303:
Page 120, line 32, at end insert—
("( ) Pesticidal use is excepted, that is—

(a) use of the product in the form of any substance, preparation or organism as a pesticide within the meaning of the Food and Environment Protection Act 1985, and

(b) the doing of any other act mentioned in section 60(1)(a) above with a view to such use.").

The noble Lord said: I should perhaps preface my remarks in introducing this amendment by suggesting that we are entering into an area in which no discussion has previously taken place; namely, the area of the agrochemical industry. I hope that the Committee will forgive me if I take a little while, but this matter is of some considerable importance, because it impinges upon the further development of agrochemicals—in the amendment the expression "pesticide" is used, which I find difficult to accommodate. However, it is the word that is used in the Food and Environment Protection Act of 1985 and that term is perhaps better understood.
This matter affects the licences of right provisions primarily of the 1977 Act, which discriminates against research based companies. In the agrochemical industry there are but six major research based companies remaining. I say that because it is a sadness that the number of research

1197
based companies has diminished. For example, one only has to look at Fisons and Boots, who found research and development expenses in the agrochemical field so onerous that they amalgamated. In turn they were taken over and their work is now being done by Schering. The history suggests that the agrochemical industry is faced with enormous expense and only the largest of companies can sustain that kind of expenditure. We are therefore left with six research based companies in the United Kingdom.
The United Kingdom accounts for only 3 per cent. of world markets. This UK-based industry is therefore having to meet the competition of world markets. North America accounts for 30 per cent. or 40 per cent. of product and Europe 25 per cent. or 30 per cent. of product. But the UK alone accounts for only 3 per cent. of world markets.
Section 266 of the Bill now before the Committee proposes to repeal those provisions in the Patents Act 1977 that relate to the licence of right in respect of pharmaceutical patents. We shall come to that section shortly. However, the six research-based companies in the United Kingdom are anxious that any such repeal to which the Government have agreed should also include agrochemical patents. These companies made a detailed case for such repeal to the Department of Trade and Industry earlier this year. I believe that the department looked upon that case with some sympathy.
There is a pressing need for new agrochemical compounds which are environmentally more acceptable and safer to the user and the crop. It is not an exaggeration to say that environmental issues—the use of pesticides, the wellbeing of the countryside and indeed the people—are contained in these needs. These more stingent requirements have resulted in an increase in difficulty and expense of research, and a fall in the rate of discovery of such new compounds. It is estimated that only one in some 18,000 compounds reaches the marketplace. Therefore sales of that one compound have to finance all the others and the abortive studies that result.
It is estimated that the costs of developing a new compound to full approval have risen enormously in the past 15 years from about £0·75 million to £15 million. It is compulsory—and rightly so—that the new compounds undergo prolonged testing to establish safety and effectiveness before approval to sell is given; and there is no quarrel about that. But the industry has only limited scope for achieving an adequate return on the enormous research investment by means of pricing. I recognise that the farming community has an interest in this matter; but since the price of an agrochemical product is dependent on the financial return to the farmer, there is in effect a market force already apparent in the pricing of the new compound.
It is essential therefore that there should be very strong patent protection in our domestic legislation. Certainly there should be protection at least equivalent to that in continental Europe. It is essential, if the industry and its investment in research in the UK is not to become weakened, that that position is obtained.
Clause 266 authorises the Secretary of State to make an order extending the repeal of the licence of right provisions to other uses as he thinks fit. While this procedure could be applied to agrochemical uses, there is a pressing need now for repeal in this area. This need is not met by the Bill, particularly as the procedure is likely to lead to uncertainty and delay: the kind of uncertainty that we have experienced in other areas of a similar industry.
The amendment provides specifically for a repeal of licences of right in respect of agrochemical patents and would therefore remove the doubt that would obtain if the other provisions were used. It would also enable further research planning to be undertaken. I commend the amendment to the Committee. I beg to move.
Lord Beaverbrook: We have received submissions from the British Agrochemicals Association and a group of research-based agrochemical companies arguing that patents for pesticides, like pharmaceutical patents, should be removed from the scope of Schedule 1 of the 1977 Act licence of right provisions. There are however aspects of the case put to us that require further clarification. We are in touch with the British Agrochemicals Association on this but are not at present able to make a decision.
Without commitment, I am happy to agree to consider the arguments put forward by my noble friend and hope that by the next stage we shall be able to come to a conclusion.
Lord Lucas of Chilworth: I am grateful to my noble friend the Minister for what he has said and look forward to seeing what the Government are able to come up with by the time we reach the next stage. On that basis, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
11.30 p.m.
Lord Lucas of Chilworth Lord Lucas of Chilworth moved Amendment No. 304:
Page 121, line 5, leave out from ("has") to ("1987") in line 7 and insert ("on 28th October").
The noble Lord said: In moving the amendment, I speak at the same time to Amendments Nos. 305, 306, 307 and 308. Perhaps it is not necessary, but I shall nevertheless remind the Committee that exactly a year ago on 12th January 1987 we discussed in this Chamber the repeal of licences of right in the pharmaceutical industry. Because of the time, I shall not remind the Committee of the figures involved, the number of people, the value of the pharmaceutical research-based industry in this country, not only in terms of balance of payments, but in terms of employment. I think that the Committee will probably recall all of this. However, I draw the attention of the Committee to the fact that in 1977 a compromise arrangement was made with regard to licences of right. It was an unhappy situation and in the early 1980s the Government agreed that if the pharmaceutical industry could produce a satisfactory case, that not only had the cost of development of new drugs, but also the time required to bring those drugs to market been eroded from the original

1199
20-year term of patent life, the Government would give consideration to the repeal. That was accepted in 1986. There was a proposal in 1986 in the suggested Intellectual Property Bill which never came to Parliament, that resulted in the Lord Northfield Bill of January 1987, which had the support of the government of the day. That failed.
We now have the repeal in this Bill, which I welcome. I note that the effective date of the proposals in the Bill as set out in Clause 276 is to be two months after the passing of this Bill, which may be at the end of the Session. That date is not known, but it is realistic, I believe, to suggest that it might be in September or October 1988.
Since the Government have agreed to the repeal, is it not a case of the sooner the better? It has been long promised. There has been a good deal of misunderstanding. There has been a good deal of apprehension as to when all this was going to come about. The licence of right provision applies only to patents completing 16 years before June 1994, so further delay will obviously eat into the patents affected, and the value of the repeal will itself be eroded. The only unfair aspect of the amendment which I have set down might be retrospectively to turn a past act into an act of infringement. But I am suggesting to the committee that the amendment takes care of that.
It is noteworthy that the Government's proposal itself causes some pending applications for a licence of right to lapse. This is because during the passage of the Bill there could be applications to the Patent Office for terms to be settled on all the patents which may be subject to licence of right in the future. That is up to June 1994. The Patent Office might not have processed them, but they would have been made. Section 267 4B(2) provides that paragraph 4B(2) shall nullify all pending applications on patents which have not yet passed the end of their 15th year.
In this amendment one is looking to put right the anomaly of the 1977 Act and to secure that which was proved to the satisfaction of the Government in 1985 and accepted by the Government in 1986 and which was somewhat thwarted in 1987. It would come into effect at a determined date—October 1987, the date of the introduction of this Bill—rather than leave the further undetermined date that obtains by virtue of Clause 276. At the same time it would reduce the erosion of the repeal.
This matter is of concern to some nine major research-based pharmaceutical companies in this country, all of whom have, if I may put it this way, a jewel in their crown. Some of the jewels may be large and some of the jewels may be small; but when one takes into account the fact that so much work has to be done and so many inventions and proposals fall by the wayside that these jewels are important in sustaining the further research that all these companies must undertake during future years, I believe that what I am suggesting is not totally unreasonable. It will be to the general benefit of the industry and it will also be generally to the benefit of the health of this nation. I beg to move.
Lord Kilmarnock: I am afraid that I must differ to some extent with the noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth, in respect of his amendment. The clause which we are considering is what one might call "son of Northfield". The measure proposed was moved in a Private Member's Bill by the noble Lord, Lord Northfield, but, as the noble Lord, Lord Lucas said, it fell. It was put forward in that way because the Government did not at the time have outlined any legislation on intellectual property. It has now appeared as a Government measure in this compendious Bill, with the difference that the retrospective element of the Northfield proposals has been dropped. In my submission to the Committee, that is a slight improvement. I have some queries about the clause as a whole but I believe that it has emerged in a cleaner version as written into the Bill at the moment.
As I understand the amendments proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, they reintroduce the various retrospective elements which were in the Bill of the noble Lord, Lord Northfield. Therefore they take us back from "son of Northfield" to "Northfield".
I remember that there was a long discussion about this issue late at night and that we did not reach any satisfactory conclusion on the retrospective proposals in the Northfield Bill except that there were severe defects in them. (I see that the noble Viscount, Lord Craigavon, is in his place.) It seems to me, therefore, that it would be a mistake to reintroduce them into the Bill at this stage.
I also submit to the Committee that it is contrary to our general procedures in Parliament that legislation should be made retrospective when it alters the position between two groups of private parties. I have a note that that point was recognised by the noble Lord. Lord Lucas, when he spoke on 22nd April, 1986. I think that we should move on to discussing the clause as drafted by the Government, about which some Members of the Committee may have worries. I believe that what is proposed by the noble Lord. Lord Lucas, is a step backwards.
Lord Hacking: As a participant in the Committee stage—a little earlier in the evening—on 12th January last year and as a supporter of a patents amendment Bill which was then before the House exactly a year ago, I should like to support, if I may, the amendments placed before the Committee by the noble Lord, Lord Lucas. One always hesitates over the passing of any measure in Parliament which has a retroactive effect. Therefore, it is right to look with caution at any proposal which has a retroactive effect.
In the nature of patent protection, which has gradually been increased over the years—the 1977 Act increased it from 16 years to 20 years but gave the licence of right relief—and the nature of patents of long periods of time, it is inevitable that one has to tackle the retroactive problem. Indeed, the 1977 Act, although it did not give complete retroactivity in the extension of the patent period from 16 years to 20 years, did so for all patents that had been filed after June 1967. Therefore, there was a retroactive provision in the 1977 Act.

1201
In creating a fair balance I believe it is right—as was pointed out by the noble Lord, Lord Lucas—to take into account that this matter has been on notice for a long time and that all companies which may have been minded to take advantage of the licence of right provisions have had adequate notice that these new provisions were coming before Parliament and that they had the prospect of passing into law.
Therefore, taking into account this notice, the position of the major pharmaceutical companies and their contribution to research in the pharmaceutical industry, and taking the other matters before the Committee, I believe that these amendments are worthy of further consideration. I hope that the Government will give further consideration to them. On that basis I support the noble Lord, Lord Lucas.
Viscount Craigavon: I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Kilmarnock, for reminding the Committee that I made a rather long speech on 4th February last year about retrospection. I felt very strongly about it and I still do. On that basis, I oppose this amendment.
Given the time of night, I shall not weary the Committee with long philosophical arguments on that point, but I still believe that it has to be debated before we break what is a standard procedure in this place: that the laws that we pass come into effect on the Assent of the Sovereign and not—in the rather casual phrase that the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, used— the sooner the better. I found that to be an extraordinary way of expressing it.
Much of the legislation that we pass is for the benefit of the nation and is providing justice and fairer results all round. Because of that we do not say, "Well, let us have it tomorrow. Let us have it straightaway. Let us have it a month previously". We wait until the end of the Bill; until it has received the Royal Assent. I hope that the Government will pursue that line for the benefit of the department as well as parliamentary practice.
There is also a problem which the noble Lord, Lord Hacking, did not raise, although he was clutching in his hand a leaflet which many Members of the Committee will have received. It is headed House of Lords briefing. The first page clearly states the ABPI's position. It states:
"The relevant provisions of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Bill currently before the House deserve support".
That is the Bill before the Committee and not a Bill as amended by the noble Lord, Lord Lucas. I believe, if I may say so, that the noble Lord, Lord Kilmarnock, got it slightly wrong as to what we were inheriting from the noble Lord, Lord Northfield; that he, with the assent of the ABPI changed his Bill to diminish and reduce completely the retrospective element in it. That was a Bill which we passed to another place, which had no retrospection and which, especially reading this briefing from the ABPI, I believe to be its policy. I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, can say how the companies of which he might be speaking—and I have a letter from one of them—are reconciled to the policy that he is putting forward and to what the ABPI is telling us is a reasonable position. The noble Lord, Lord Lucas, also used the phrase "the jewel in the crown".
1202
Perhaps I may refer to one company which I think might be providing some kind of impetus for these amendments, although I am not sure that that is the case. It is very much affected by the Bill as it now stands.
I should like to mention the effect on one particular company because I understand that by far the most important product to be affected is the second largest-selling drug in the world which is due to come into licence of right in March 1988. It is called Cimetidine. It is produced by an American-based firm called Smith Kline and French.
Generic companies are naturally preparing to produce this drug and have already invested significantly to enable them to do so. We are told in various persuasive handouts by the drug companies that the average life of a drug on the market before the end of the patent is between four and five years. In fact with this drug, Cimetidine, there has already been a complete patent monopoly of over 11 years. I understand that this is really the only major drug to be affected by the commencement date as at present in the Bill.
11.45 p.m.
Lord Hacking: I wonder whether the noble Viscount can assist us? What did he mean by an 11 year patent monopoly? I did not follow the noble Viscount.
Viscount Craigavon: I may not have put it technically correctly, but I refer to the completely free use of a patent. When I say "free" I mean the sole use of a patent of a product.
Lord Hacking: Under current law it is 16 years, is it not?
Viscount Craigavon: I am sorry that I have not expressed this very carefully. I am implying that if the total length is 16 years, and the research and development, by implication, took four or five years, then the drug has been on the market for the benefit of the company for 11 years. That is very different from the four to five years which we are told is an average figure.
I shall leave it at that tonight, but in relation to these amendments I very much oppose any retrospective element in this Bill. If the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, wishes to bring this proposal back on Report I shall oppose it.
Lord Williams of Elvel: I do not wish to add to what was said by the noble Lord, Lord Kilmarnock, and the noble Viscount, Lord Craigavon. We agree wholly with what they say. We dislike the idea of retrospection. We disliked it in the case of the Patents (Amendment) Bill and we said so at the time. We dislike it now. We hope very much that the Government will resist this amendment. We shall support the Government if they resist this amendment.
Lord Beaverbrook: With the leave of the Committee I shall speak to Amendments Nos. 304, 305, 306, 307 and 308. Following a decision in

1203
proceedings before your Lordships' House sitting in its judicial capacity, the Comptroller presently accepts applications to settle terms of licences of right before the relevant patents actually become open to such licences. The aim is to have the licences settled so that licensees can work inventions as soon as the patents enter their seventeenth year; that is the licence of right period.
The effect of the amendments of my noble friend Lord Lucas would be that, upon commencement, licences held by anyone who had a licence application outstanding on 28th October 1987 could be extinguished by the patent owner. The amendments would also cause applications to settle terms of licences which were outstanding at the date of commencement of Clause 267 to cease to have effect.
In both cases this would amount to deprivation of property within the meaning of the European Convention on Human Rights. I am aware that this gives a meaning to "property" rather wider than most noble Lords, or indeed, the courts of the United Kingdom, might accept, but it is consistent with the most recent decisions of the European Court of Human Rights.
My noble friend Lord Lucas of Chilworth mentioned that Clause 267 might equally result in a deprivation of property within the meaning of the European Convention because that clause might cause some premature pending applications to lapse. We acknowledge that there may be a deprivation of property here. However, the class of persons that would be affected by the provision is small and the risk of the United Kingdom being taken to the European Court is correspondingly low. In addition, we are confident that the Court would hold that the public interest should prevail in this situation, because there is very little that can be said in favour of allowing applications to settle terms long before the licence of right in question becomes effective.
I would say to the noble Lord, Lord Hacking, that we do not accept that the transitional provisions in the 1977 Act were retroactive. They extended patent term subject to licences of right for the future but had no effect on any past events. What the noble Viscount, Lord Craigavon, meant by 11 years patent monopoly was probably that it has had a product licence from the DHSS for that time and has been on the market under a patent monopoly for 11 years.
It may be regarded as unfortunate that some considerable time has passed since my noble friend Lord Lucas announced in this House in April 1986, during the passage of the Patents, Designs and Marks Bill, the Government's intention to remove pharmaceutical patents from the scope of the licence of right provisions in question. However, the parliamentary timetable is such that the wishes of some cannot always be given the priority that they desire. Thus for the reasons I have given it is not appropriate to provide an earlier operative date in relation to the patents that will be affected by the clause.
Lord Hacking: Before the noble Lord sits down I wonder whether he would reconsider the point concerning the 1977 Act. That Act precisely gave
1204
extended terms of patent for all patents that had been granted after June 1967 and at the same time gave the licence of right provision as well. It was retroactive, and that was the point I was seeking to make to the Committee.
Lord Beaverbrook: I cannot agree with the noble Lord that that was retroactive. He is entitled to his opinion and we are entitled to ours, but I feel that that aspect of the 1977 Act was not in fact retroactive.
Lord Lucas of Chilworth: I have to confess that I am not overly surprised at the responses I have heard this evening in your Lordships' Committee. I should, however, reply to some of them. I remind the Committee that this amendment is also under the name of the noble Lord. Lord Hunter of Newington, and I apologise to him for not having mentioned that at the outset.
I am surprised that the noble Lord, Lord Kilmarnock, should describe the amendment in the terms that he did. Technically it is retrospective, or retroactive, or whatever word one likes to use, but in fact the industry has been under no illusions since 1986 that these matters were going to come to pass. What one is trying to do is to set a firm date so that the difficulties that have been experienced by the industry should no longer he in doubt. because doubt has existed for very many years. That is not good for any kind of industry.
I cannot quote legislation without a lot of research, but I believe that retroactive legislation has been passed by both Houses of Parliament in recent years. This is not a new idea. The noble Lord, Lord Hacking, has made the point very eloquently.
I turn to the noble Viscount, Lord Craigavon, whose strong feelings I recall vividly. I am not surprised that he should be here, even as late as it is, again to reiterate those feelings. There is no standard procedure on retroactive or retrospective legislation. It depends on what Parliament determines, and Parliament has decided in the past, and no doubt will in the future, that certain pieces of legislation shall be effected as from a date before the point of discussion.
I found his extraction of the original ABPI brief rather odd. I do not want to comment particularly about the brief because it has in fact produced another piece of information which may or may not have reached him. It has reached some noble Lords, I know.
We are not talking about one particular drug. We are talking about Zovirax from Wellcome, Opticron from Fison, certainly Tagamet from SKF, Triludan from Dow, drugs from Pfizer, May and Baker, Bristol Myers and Astra, which has an asthmatic drug which will effectively have only two to three years real marketable life. So whether he likes my description of jewel—whether it is a big one or a little one—matters not a jot. These are all important drugs which are seriously affected by this legislation, three of them from 1988 and the asthmatic one a year earlier.
I turn now to the Minister's answer.
Viscount Craigavon: The noble Lord implied that that policy of the ABPI had changed since this blue document was issued. Can he confirm whether that is the case?
Lord Lucas of Chilworth: All I would say is that the papers I have seen suggest to me that the ABPI would give support to the amendment that I have set down.
There is just one point in the Minister's response that I want to take up. He suggests that there is a risk of challenge from the European Court in so far as the human rights convention is concerned. I recall vividly that the Government have in fact not had a happy time in the European Court over recent years. It may he that which determines their present thinking. But I do not believe from that which has been provided to me that they are well advised in this regard.
I have been provided with an opinion by an eminent QC, Mr. Robin Jacob, a man well versed in patent law and in European law, which suggests that an application, or indeed a licence, is not a property which is tradable. It cannot be assigned; certainly an application cannot be. Even if the application granted by the comptroller were to come into force, that cannot be assigned; that cannot be a property. It cannot therefore be a deprivation of some particular body under the terms of the convention.
It is nearly tomorrow. There are but few Members of the Committee here. It would be ridiculous of me to test opinion. I merely say to the Committee that I am not happy with, nor indeed am I satisfied with, the Government's response in this regard. I shall seek to discuss with them the human rights issue, which I believe is the one they are mostly afraid of. The retrospective question is a matter for Parliament. I shall ask the leave of the Committee to withdraw this series of amendments tonight and give notice that I shall most certainly return at a later and perhaps more appropriate time. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 305, 306, 307 and 308 not moved.]
12 midnight
Lord Rea Lord Rea moved Amendment No. 308A:
Page 121, line 30, at end insert—
("(8) A declaration filed under this section shall have no effect and any declaration already filed shall cease to have effect in relation to a medicinal product which has been licensed for sale or supply in the United Kingdom under section 7 of the Medicines Act 1968 for a period of ten years or more.").
The noble Lord said: I apologise for tabling this amendment so late in the passage of the Bill through the Committee. I do not apologise that I have to move it so late in the day—or so early in the morning as I should say. I can only regret it. It was only after discussions with members of the pharmaceutical industry during the recess that I realised that action along the lines of this amendment could be useful. It might, I felt, possibly be acceptable both to the industry and to the Government. The Government in this case represent the taxpayer and in their hands lies the future and safety of the National Health Service.
My personal position is that Clause 266 should be dropped and I intend to support my noble friend Lord Williams on this matter. However, in the unlikely event that my noble friend is unable to convince the Committee that the clause should not stand part of the Bill, I feel that this amendment would improve the clause and meet some of the points made by the pharmaceutical industry in persuading the Government to abolish licences of right.
Their argument—and I précis it and may therefore miss some of the points—is that new drugs take a long time to develop up to the point of marketing after the patent has been filed. Some may take up to 12 or more years. In that case there are only four years of protected market life before licences of right become available under the present system. At that point other firms can breach the monopoly and sell at a lower price.
However true that may be, there are other drugs that get on to the market remarkably quickly after the patent has been filed. An example is Ranitidine, which is better known as Zantac, one of the H2 receptor antagonists. It is very useful in the treatment of peptic ulcers. This received a licence only four years after it had been patented. Therefore it will have 12 years' protection before licences of right become available.
This amendment is intended to introduce some fairness into a situation which is manifestly unfair at present, particularly as short patent licence periods or patent marketing periods are easier for pharmaceutical firms to achieve with the "me too" or derivative drugs, where the basic research has been done by another firm, or, as is equally likely, by a university department of clinical pharmacology. A10 year period of patent protection guaranteed to all products would be both logical and fair. I am sure the Minister will be familiar with this approach. It has been debated before when a similar amendment to the Bill of the noble Lord, Lord Northfield, was put down by my noble friend Lord Stallard.
It has been calculated that this amendment might save the National Health Service some £24 million per annum between 1993 and 1997. That is out of the £40 million to £50 million per annum which inclusion of this clause will cost the National Health Service. The noble Lord will probably dispute my figures, but I can show him my calculations in writing. I do not wish to press the amendment, but I shall be interested to hear the Minister's response.
Lord Kilmarnock: The intention of the amendment, with which I have some sympathy, seems to be to preserve licences of right in respect of branded products with an uninterrupted market monopoly of 10 years. The noble Lord, Lord Rea, gave the instance of the case of Zantac. He has also given some figures of potential savings for the National Health Service. Noble Lords who are interested in the NHS will attach importance to that.
There is another side to the question. The noble Lord referred to guaranteeing the patent right of exploitation for 10 years after licence to all products. That could have a different effect in the case of a drug with a long period of development. He said that there

1207
was a period of four years before Zantac came on to the market. The industry states that many drugs now have a development period of 12 or 13 years before coming on to the market. If one were to apply the principle across the board, one might well come to the position in which patents were extended beyond a 20-year period, possibly to 22 or 23 years. I want to be clear in my own mind that the noble Lord is aware of that implication in the amendment. If he is, then this is probably quite a sensible way to go.
If there was a period of 10 years guaranteed protection in all cases from the moment of licensing, some of the concerns of the industry would be taken care of. I am looking at the noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth, to impress upon him that I am not an enemy of the industry. The vital point is that, when the patent protection period comes to an end, the end is final and the generic process can take place from that point. If that is the intention of the amendment, I have some sympathy for it.
Lord Beaverbrook: The Government's intention behind removing pharmaceutical patents from the scope of the Schedule 1 licence of right provisions of the Patents Act 1977 was to compensate the owners of these patents for significant delays in obtaining marketing approval for pharmaceuticals. These days, on average, approximately 11 years of a pharmaceutical's patent term will have expired before the pharmaceutical can be marketed.
The amendment would allow licences of right to be had on patents for pharmaceuticals that had been licensed for sale or supply in the United Kingdom for 10 years or more. That is for pharmaceuticals that had been granted marketing approval quicker than the average.
We have not had time to consider the implications of this amendment. However, in view of the Government's original intention, we shall consider whether licences of right should continue to he available on patents for pharmaceuticals that have taken significantly less time than the average to get marketing approval. Perhaps the noble Lord, Lord Rea, will withdraw his amendment in order that we may consider the matter further. We accept that the noble Lord's amendment would result in a saving to the NHS, but we cannot agree his figure. Our estimates put the figure at approximately £2·5 million.
Lord Rea: I could bandy words about the sum involved, but this is not the right place to do so. I am encouraged by the noble Lord's words, and I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
On Question, Whether Clause 266 shall stand part of the Bill?
Lord Williams of Elvel: We have all had a sense of déjà vu about this debate as most of us who are in the Chamber participated in the debates on the Patents (Amendment) Bill last year. The speech that I was expecting to make opposing Clause 266 stand part,
1208
has been considerably modified by the Minister's response to the amendment moved by my noble friend Lord Rea. It was a response that I did not expect and, like my noble friend, I am encouraged. There may be some grounds for hoping that a common position, or at least a position that is acceptable to all sides of this Committee (other than certain interested parties) may emerge.
We should still like to see Clause 266 removed from the Bill. It is, of course, late at night and we are late into the Committee stage of the Bill, so I do not intend to press this to a Division. Nevertheless, we have strong objections to Clause 266.
We fully accept the importance of research and development to pharmaceutical companies, but, with the current state of National Health Service funding and the controversy that that is arousing even now and will continue to arouse, we cannot accept that extra burdens should be placed on the NHS without proper compensation, which is what this clause would achieve. We can bandy figures around. Last year we bandied figures around about how much it would cost the NHS between 1993 and 1997 if the Patents (Amendment) Bill were passed into legislation by both Chambers. We could bandy figures around as to what the figures would be if this clause were put into effect. Our belief is that the figure is probably somewhat higher than the Government's estimate in the financial section of the Explanatory Memorandum. Nevertheless, I agree that it is extremely difficult to arrive at a consensus of what that figure might be. It is difficult, but it is necessary, because we must ensure that the National Health Service is not burdened to the point where cuts in services result from this provision without any compensating benefit. I said that we accept the importance of R & D to the British economy and to the pharmaceutical industry. No one can deny that. Therefore, I propose to put forward to the Committee ideas that may go some way towards mitigating out hostility to Clause 266.
If some way were to be found to ensure that the extra revenues accruing to those companies (whose plight the noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth, has eloquently explained to us) were applied to research and development; and if some way were found to ensure that the prices charged to the NHS, perhaps through the PPRS or whatever, as a result of the abolition of licences of right, would not increase, we might be able to get back onto some common ground. If the amendment moved by my noble friend Lord Rea were accepted as it stands by the Government, again we might be on some common ground.
I hope very much that the Government have looked at the Canadian situation, the famous Bill entitled C.22, which is causing something of a constitutional row in Canada at the moment because the Senate has insisted on certain amendments which the Lower House has not accepted. But in that Bill it is proposed to abolish licences of right. I hope the Canadians will excuse me, but Canada has been something of a rogue elephant in this context. But to insist that a certain proportion of the proceeds should go to research, and indeed that there should certainly

1209
he a price control over the companies which benefit from the abolition of licences of right, is along the lines of what we should like to see.
We should furthermore like to see some protection for generic producers, which, when they have the ability to produce, can be allowed to do so properly and in proper and fair competition with the pharmaceutical companies which have the patented products. I shall not take up any more of the Committee's time because I think I have said enough to explain exactly what our attitude is. It is not one of a wholly closed mind. We recognise that there is a problem. However, as it stands Clause 266 is unacceptable, but I am encouraged by the response which the Minister gave to my noble friend Lord Rea.
12.15 a.m.
Lord Kilmarnock: I just wanted to say why I had added my name to the list of noble Lords who are opposing this clause. I think I should describe my opposition as being of a probing nature. The last time round the course the main question was the cost to the National Health Service and I think that was not properly resolved at the time. The figure which comes to my mind, and the noble Lord, Lord Beaverbrook, will correct me if I am wrong, is that the Government forecast a cost of between £5 and £8 million over 10 years. That was the sort of figure which they were mooting. I think that is obviously not realistic. The simple instance which the noble Lord, Lord Rea, gave as the cost of Zantac would be way above that figure.
If there is a policy decision to support the industry at the expense of the National Health Service, that is a political decision which the Government may have taken. As they are in government, they have the right to make that decision. But if so, it should be on the basis of complete openness about the figure so that we can judge the decision on its merits.
My first question to the noble Lord is whether the Government stand by their calculations on the costs of the National Health Service implicit in the clause of the Bill as it now stands. My view is that the Government's original forecast is difficult to sustain. As the noble Lord, Lord Williams, said, we ought to be a little clearer on that point.
There is one other matter which I wanted to raise with the noble Lord this evening and which I think is very important. I wanted to ask him what view the Government are taking of the ruling of Mr. Justice Henry in a recent judicial review in favour of the company SKF and against the Department of Health and Social Security. From that it appears that not only may copying under licences of right be illegal but also all applications to make generic drugs, even when the patent has expired. If this were to become the accepted position under law, it would have a very profound and far-reaching consequence for the cost of drugs in this country and as a spin-off a very large-scale effect on the economics of the National Health Service.
I have had a considerable amount of correspondence on this. I have had a letter from
1210
Professor Andrew Herxheimer of the Department of Clinical Pharmacology and Therapeutics at Charing Cross. In it he says:
"I completely agree that the new Bill should encourage competition from generic drug producers after the expiry of the patent. The legal position cannot be allowed to remain the mess it has become after Mr. Justice Henry's decision".
I have another rather longer letter from the regional principal pharmacist in the North East Thames Regional Health Authority which I shall not read out at this time of night. I think it would be very interesting for the Committee to know what action the Government are proposing to take about this.
Finally I wish to return to the position that I adopted when we were discussing the Bill of the noble Lord, Lord Northfield, which was broadly that the repeal of licences of right, if that is what is due to the industry, should be accompanied by some stimulus to generic production and some attempt to limit National Health Service costs in the future. To that end I moved, but subsequently withdrew, an amendment which would have made generic substitution mandatory on the pharmacist subject to a veto by the general practitioner. For that amendment I simply adopted the method proposed in Section 24 of the Greenfield report on effective prescribing, with which the noble Lord, Lord Rea, and no doubt other noble Lords are familiar.
I still find it a little hard to understand why the Government have endorsed, as they have on a number of occasions, the importance of economic and effective prescribing but cannot bring themselves to take the two steps most calculated to bring this about, which are, first, to ensure the availability of generic products and, secondly, to encourage their use by general practitioners by some sort of mechanism such as that advocated by Greenfield— that is to say, the pharmacist would substitute a generic equivalent where one existed unless the prescribing doctor indicated otherwise in a box which would be provided for that purpose. Generic prescription is, after all, mandatory in hospitals and it is hard to see how the public at large would suffer by its further extension into general practice, as it has already taken place to some extent.
The Government have brought in the limited list scheme and that has naturally achieved some savings but nothing in comparison with what would be achieved by the wider adoption of generic substitution. If the interests of the pharmaceutical industry are at stake here and causing concern, it is worth pointing out that in the United States, where generic products are approaching a 50 per cent. share of the market, this has been accompanied by increased patent protection, so there is no reason why the two should be incompatible.
I should be interested to hear from the noble Lord why we should not follow the same road in this country. If he can tell me that the Government are prepared to consider all these matters with an open mind and with a view to curtailing National Health Service costs, which is a matter of great preoccupation at the moment, I shall have less difficulty with this clause as it stands and I shall perhaps not feel obliged to put down another generic substitution amendment. But, if I do not get such

1211
encouragement, I have to tell the noble Lord that I shall certainly want to consider putting down such an amendment at a later stage in the Bill.
Lord Monkswell: I am sorry to intervene at such a late hour but I wish to make two very quick points. First, I hope that the Government can come up with some mechanism whereby the licence of right provision can be done away with. There has been some discussion earlier and I shall not go into that.
Secondly, following the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Rea, and the Government's very sympathetic response to it, it would seem to me as a layman in pharmaceutical terms that there must be incredible pressures on pharmaceutical companies actually to get their new drugs on to the market, given that their protection starts from the point at which the patent is registered or accepted rather than when they start marketing the drug. I wonder whether there is not sometimes so much pressure that they cut corners in terms of the checking and safety provisions for drugs. It has been mentioned in my ear that they are not allowed to, but there have been a number of cases over the past few years where drugs have come on to the market and then after a year or two have had to be withdrawn. I wonder whether the suggestion that the noble Lord, Lord Rea, made that the pharmaceutical companies should be given 10 years of effective safe marketing would reduce the tremendous pressures that must be imposed on them to get their drugs on to the market quickly.
Lord Beaverbrook: I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord Monkswell, will not be surprised if I do not take up again his invitation to debate the matters of consumer safety, drug testing or licences of right. However, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Elvel, and I think that we are more likely to find common ground on the clause in the context of the amendment put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Rea, than on the suggestion to recycle extra revenue into further R&D. Perhaps the matter will become clearer when we have responded fully to that amendment.
Perhaps I may say to the noble Lord, Lord Kilmarnock, that the Department of Health estimate of the likely overall cost, which is in the range of £5 million to £8 million, could be widened at both the lower and upper ends. However, that indicates the expected order of costs. There are a number of factors to be taken into account, in looking at the 1990s, in a market of discovery. Who knows what drugs are waiting in the wings to topple today's best sellers? Who can say what doctors will prescribe for their patients at that time? Factors such as those cause wide variations in estimates of cost. I believe that we must look at the relatively modest cost of abolition against a widespread gain in confidence from the major pharmaceutical companies prepared to invest in this country in research and manufacturing.
I can assure the noble Lord, Lord Kilmarnock, that the Department of Health understands his concern over the continued availability of generic medicines. The licensing authority has taken
1212
immediate steps to ensure that it abides by the recent judgment by Mr. Justice Henry. The Department of Health and Social Security is studying that judgment and, once the precise terms of a consequential order, which is to be made shortly, are known, it will decide whether to appeal and what if any further action is called for. In the meantime, it would be premature for me to make any further statement about the implications of the judgment. Perhaps I may further say to the noble Lord that the Government do not propose to encourage generic substitutions. However, they already encourage doctors to prescribe generically.
Clause 266 agreed to.
Clauses 267 and 268 agreed to.
Schedule 5 [Patents: minor amendments]:
Lord Beaverbrook Lord Beaverbrook moved Amendments Nos. 309 to 311:
Page 177, leave out lines 6 to 11 and insert—
("(2) In section 43 of the Patents Act 1977 (supplementary provisions with respect to employees' inventions), in subsection (4) (references to patents to include other forms of protection, whether in UK or elsewhere for "in sections 40 to 42" substitute "in sections 39 to 42".").
Page 177, line 42, leave out ("any such additional matter") and insert ("matter extending beyond that disclosed in the application as filed").
Page 177, line 45, leave out ("any such").
The noble Lord said: Perhaps it will be for the convenience of the Committee if I move en bloc Amendments Nos. 309, 310 and 311. Those amendments clarify and simplify certain provisions in Schedule 5. The first amendment stems from the recognition that the proposed paragraph 7(4) extending certain rights for employee inventors to patent applications made anywhere in the world is unnecessary. The required effect can be achieved simply by extending the scope of a similar provision already existing in Section 43 of the Patents Act 1977.
The second and third amendments clarify the provisions in the new Section 76 of the Patents Act 1977 which would be inserted by paragraph 10. In subsections (2) and (3) of the new Section 76, the words "any such" in the phrase "any such additional matter" do not clearly identify the type of additional matter in question. The words refer back to the term "additional matter" in subsection (1). However, the definition of additional matter in subsection (1) refers to an earlier application and is inappropriate for subsections (2) and (3) which are not concerned with earlier applications. The amendments will eliminate any possible confusion. I beg to move.
On Question, amendments agreed to. Schedule 5, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 269 and 270 agreed to.
Clause 271 [Supplementary provisions as to fraudulent reception]:
Lord Beaverbrook Lord Beaverbrook moved Amendment No. 312:
Page 123, line 13, leave out subsection (5) and insert—
("(5) Any expression used in section 269, section 270 or this section which is defined for the purposes of Part 1 of this Act (copyright) has the same meaning as in that Part.").
The noble Lord said: This amendment tidies up a minor drafting point in order to clarify the meaning of subsection (5) of the clause. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 271, as amended, agreed to.
12.30 a.m.
Clause 272 [Fraudulent application or use of trade mark an offence]:
Lord Mottistone Lord Mottistone moved Amendment No. 312A:
Page 23, line 17, leave out ("section is") and insert ("sections are").
The noble Lord said: The amendments are grouped so that there might be 10 debates, but I have put them all together and, with the agreement of my noble friend on the Front Bench, I shall speak to Amendments Nos. 312A to 312N together. I am advised on this matter through the CBI by the Anti-Counterfeiting Group.
Clause 272 proposes a new Section 58A of the Trade Marks Act 1938. It contains a new offence to deal with counterfeiting, which a government White Paper has rightly described as a pernicious activity. Clause 272 is greatly welcomed both by industry which falls victim to this practice and the trading standards service which has hitherto fought to control it. All the amendments that have been tabled are designed solely to achieve a smoother fulfilment of the objectives of the clause.
The amendments fall into two groups. The first group consists of Amendments Nos. 312B to 312F, which put forward four separate drafting changes— two in subsection (1) of the new Section 58A—firstly to remove wording implying an element of intent, which is believed to be inappropriate at this point (Amendments Nos. 312B and 312D); and secondly, to catch possession of counterfeit goods by way of trade (Amendment No. 312C). There is one change in subsection (2) of the new Section 58A which would change the burden of proof of a belief held by a defendant into a defence which he may raise; that is covered by Amendment No. 312E. I have already spoken to Amendment No. 312F, which my noble friend has undertaken to accept.
Turning to the second group consisting of Amendments Nos. 312A and 312G to 312N, all those amendments put forward powers for the proper enforcement of Section 58A. They do it by proposing additional new sections numbered 58B to 58H. These sections are all modelled on existing legislation or on earlier provisions in this Bill for the enforcement of copyright. There is enforcement by trading standards officers (Section 58B, Amendment No. 312G); power for the police to apply to a magistrate for a warrant to search for counterfeit goods (the proposed new Section 58C, Amendment No. 312H); power for a court to order forfeiture of counterfeit goods (Section 58D, Amendment No. 312J); and power for enforcement authorities to share relevant information with each other and in proper cases with industry (proposed new Section 58E, Amendment No. 312K). In addition, there are provisions enabling Customs to treat imports of counterfeit goods as
1214
prohibited. These amend existing provisions for copyright to bring them into line with provisions for copyright in Clauses 102 and 103 of this Bill. There are also Sections 58G and 58H which are covered respectively by Amendments Nos. 312M and 312N.
All these amendments are designed by people who are experienced in these matters to tidy up Clause 272 and I hope that they will appeal to my noble friend the Minister if not in total then in part. If they are not entirely appealing, perhaps my noble friend may be able to say that he might be able to improve the wording, or whatever, of the relevant parts. I beg to move.
Lord Beaverbrook: For the convenience of the Committee, I shall speak to Amendments Nos. 312A to 312N, excluding Amendment No. 312F, which was spoken to earlier by my noble friend. We believe that Amendments Nos. 312B and 312D proposed by the noble Lord will not have the effect that he desires. Instead, we believe that they will merely serve to obscure the scope of the offence. The replacement of the formula "used or intended to be used" by "for use in" would not make it any less necessary to prove the intention of the person who made, sold or used material for labelling, packaging or advertising goods, but might require the prosecution to establish also that the material was of a type which was normally used for that purpose. This could lead a prosecution to fail merely because the defendant made, or intended to make, an unusual use of material.
As the clause is drafted, it is enough that the material either has been used or is intended to be used for a counterfeiting purpose. If it has been used for that purpose, no further proof of intention is needed. The amendment, however, would render evidence of actual use inadequate. It would become necessary to prove the intention underlying the use, in order to show that the material was for use in labelling, packaging or advertising goods.
Moreover, there might be cases in which the accused intended to use material for labelling, packaging or advertising purposes which was not normally used for that purpose. As the clause is drafted, proof of his intention would be enough. The amendment might, however, open the door to a defence along these lines: "I know that I intended to use this material to label goods, but it is not normally used for that purpose, and you have failed to prove that it is material for use in labelling goods". I am not saying that such a defence would succeed, but there is no point in running the risk that it might.
Turning to Amendment No. 312C, we are happy to accept this in principle. It would make it an offence merely to be in possession of counterfeit goods in certain circumstances—the amendment says "by way of trade", but I shall come back to that phrase in a minute—without the prosecution having to prove an actual sale or offer for sale. When the Bill was introduced, we did not think it right to create an offence of mere possession punishable by 10 years' imprisonment; but having received representations on the point and having heard what has been said here today, we think that possession should be added to the clause. The man with a warehouse full of

1215
counterfeit goods ought to be convicted whether or not the prosecution can prove that he has successfully made a sale.
We do not, however, think that "by way of trade" is right. That phrase appears in the Copyright Act 1956, and when we repeated it in the copyright clauses sent out for consultation last year we were rightly questioned about its obscurity.
I suspect that what is needed is something along the lines of Clause 98(1)(c), "in the course of a trade or business with a view to the commission of a further offence under this section." However, we should like to give further thought to the exact words and come forward with our own amendment at a later stage.
Amendment No. 312E would replace subsection (2)(c) with a statutory defence, and this is another amendment that we can accept in principle. We recognise that the existing formulation of subsection (2)(c) would place on the prosecution the heavy burden of proving an absence of belief on the part of the accused.
Proof of a negative is always difficult. We believe that the shifting of the burden of proof would ease that burden without being unfair to the accused.
I should like to be able to accept this amendment without more ado, but unfortunately the drafting is not quite right. It does not say that for the defence to succeed, the accused must actually believe as well as having reasonable grounds for belief. Obviously, a person who has reasonable grounds for believing his entitlement but actually knows otherwise ought not to be able to use this defence. If the noble Lord would withdraw this amendment, we shall deal with this question together with the other amendments that we have undertaken to bring forward on this clause at a later stage.
Turning to Amendment No. 3I2G, I can say at the outset, that we favour giving the trading standards officers powers under the new law. In practice, they are the people who will in many cases uncover evidence of counterfeiting and it would be anomalous if they could not use that evidence to bring a prosecution.
The approach adopted in the Amendment No. 312G is attractive because it would adapt the powers trading standards officers already have under the Trade Descriptions Act to enter premises and seize goods or documents. In practice it would be unlikely to result in any new encroachment on private rights, or a drain on local authorities' resources, because the new law is not expected particularly to increase the number of cases needing investigation at the outset. The benefits of Clause 272 are more in improved chances of conviction and more realistic sentencing in serious cases.
Local authorities will clearly have an interest in any proposals concerning trading standards officers and we have already started a consultation exercise to determine their views on the possibility of trading standards officers being given powers to enforce the new offence. As I have said, I believe that the additional resource implications will be minimal. I therefore hope for a positive response, particularly since the proposals are supported by the trading
1216
standards officers themselves. Once this consultation is completed we shall be in a position to bring forward whatever amendments may be needed.
New Section 58C proposed by Amendment No. 312H would give constables new powers to enter and search premises over and above the general powers they have under the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984. Under the existing law a constable may obtain a search warrant only if the offence committed is a serious one. This depends on the circumstances of the individual case. The amendment would remove the need to show that the offence was serious. This is, however, unnecessary if trading standards officers are given the powers. I indicated just a moment ago that we are prepared in principle to give them. These officials have general authority to enter business premises and can obtain warrants in respect of residential premises by showing due cause. I therefore cannot accept Amendment No. 312H.
Trading standards officers will of course be able to take police officers with them if violence is anticipated. In those serious cases where the police may be expected to take a lead in the investigations they will be able to obtain warrants in any case. Accordingly I ask my noble friend to withdraw the amendment as I certainly could not accept it.
Turning now to Amendment No. 312J, property used in the commission of an offence is already liable to be forfeit under general powers given to the criminal courts. These powers are in fact being strengthened by Clause 65 of the Criminal Justice Bill, which is currently being debated in another place. Nevertheless, we acknowledge that counterfeiting gives rise to special considerations. Counterfeits are not like other property used in the commission of an offence. For example, housebreaking equipment may be perfectly innocent everyday tools. It would not be right for hammers or screwdrivers to be confiscated unless they actually related to an offence for which a conviction had been secured. Counterfeits, on the other hand, are not innocent in themselves. In a sense they are the offence.
But there is a problem. It is that a distinction is quire rightly being drawn between counterfeiting, which is a criminal matter, and simple trade mark infringement, which is not. But how is a court to decide, where there has been no conviction, that goods are counterfeit as opposed to straightforward civil infringements? We must be very careful that the criminal courts should not trespass on what ought to be a matter for the civil law.
The proposed amendment takes no account of these considerations and we therefore believe it is much too broadly framed. We are, however, prepared to look again at whether there is scope for some strengthening of the powers of forfeiture; for example, where convictions have been secured on specimen charges only but where large quantities of goods similar or identical to those in respect of which charges were brought were also seized.
Amendment No. 312K has two aspects. Both are concerned with the disclosure of information by enforcement authorities. The first aspect is that an enforcement authority is to be permitted to pass on information to any other enforcement authority. We

1217
have no problem with this aspect. Indeed we believe that exchange of information of this kind is important for efficient enforcement. However, we see difficulties in the second aspect in which it is proposed that enforcement authorities should be able to pass on information. The amendment would create a duty to pass certain information to trade mark proprietors and give the courts power to order disclosure in certain circumstances. We are not convinced that that is right. It is not at all clear to what extent information about criminal investigations should be made available for the purposes of private litigation, particularly only to one side in that litigation. There are matters of general principle involved here and we shall have to think very carefully about what amendments, if any, should be made.
We have reservations about Amendments Nos. 312M and 312N. In the first place, importation of counterfeit products from outside the EC is already covered by an EC regulation. Thus the amendments could not be applied to such imports. Furthermore, trade mark proprietors already have the right to notify Customs and Excise of the expected importation of all infringing goods, whether counterfeit or not, and to have them treated as prohibited. This right is given under Section 64A of the Trade Marks Act 1938, which was inserted by Section 17 of the Trade Descriptions Act 1968.
The proposed new provision would, however, go much further in allowing counterfeits to be treated as prohibited goods for up to five years. We believe that such a provision would place a heavy burden upon the Customs and Excise. We are not convinced that this would be justified. We shall, however, look carefully at resource implications and consider whether there is anything more that can be done.
I hope that that is helpful to the noble Lord in relation to this large group of amendments. Perhaps he would like to consider further what I have said.
Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran: I am very grateful for the clear comments made by the Minister. I, like my noble friend Lord Ezra, whose name is attached to this amendment, was also approached by the group known as the Anti-counterfeiting Group. My noble friend Lord Ezra asked me to tell the Committee that, as president of the Institute of Trading Standards Administration, he is very keen to strengthen the provisions against counterfeiting. He specifically referred to Amendment No. 312G, which the Minister approached with some sympathy.
Lord Mottistone: I am grateful to my noble friend for his careful explanation of all these amendments and indeed for his acceptance of so many of them in principle, and for his undertaking to look at most of those that he has not accepted. I think that it is most hopeful that the major purpose of this group of amendments to tidy up Clause 272 will be achieved, if not immediately, at later stages of the Bill. I beg leave to withdraw Amendment No. 312A.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 312B to 312E not moved.]
Lord Mottistone Lord Mottistone moved Amendment No. 312F:
Page 124, line 11 after ("director,") insert ("manager,").
The noble Lord said: I beg to move. I have already spoken to this amendment.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendments Nos. 312G to 312N not moved.]
Clause 272, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 273 [Financial assistance for certain international bodies]:
[Amendment No, 312P not moved.]
Clause 273 agreed to.
Clause 274 agreed to.
Clause 275 [Extent]:
Lord Beaverbrook Lord Beaverbrook moved Amendment No. 312Q:
Page 124, line 39, leave out ("(performers' rights)") and insert ("(rights in performances)").
The noble Lord said: Amendments Nos. 312Q, 313 and 314 are by way of corrections to Clause 275. I hope that it is convenient to the Committee to deal with them all together.
First, we only recently spotted an error in subsection (1), which Amendment No. 312Q will correct. The title of Part II is not "performers' rights" but "rights in performances". Secondly, the Committee will doubtless have noticed that subsection (1) does not specify the relevant clause in Part II which deals with the extent of that part. We therefore need to insert a reference to Clause 185 in subsection (1).
Thirdly, noble Lords will note that Part VII commences with Clause 269 and not Clause 271, as might be inferred from subsection (4)(a). As the subsection stands the bill is silent as to the extent of Clauses 269 and 270. Amendment No. 313 will correct our mistake and rectify this omission. I beg to move Amendment No. 312Q.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Beaverbrook Lord Beaverbrook moved Amendments Nos. 313 and 314:
Page 124, line 40, after ("146") insert (", 185").
Page 125, line 6, leave out ("271") and insert ("269").
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Clause 275, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 276 and 277 agreed to.
Schedule 6 agreed to.
[Amendment No. 315 not moved.]
Schedule 7 [Repeals]:
Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran moved Amendment No. 315A:
Page 188, line 3, at end insert—

("1938 c. 22

Trade Marks Act 1938

Section 28(6)").

The noble Lord said: I beg to move this amendment. I have already made a few remarks about this and the noble Earl, Lord Dundee, said that he would reserve his comments until this particular amendment came up for consideration.
I should like to refer to a letter written by the Chartered Patent Agent, Mr. Ashmead, to the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, pointing out the importance of obtaining trade mark registrations in regard to character merchandising. The Trade Marks Act 1938 did not cover such trading and did not realise that such trading was possible. I should like to reiterate what was said by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Bridge, about Section 28(6) of the Trade Marks Act. He said:
"It is a complete anachronism and the sooner it is repealed the better".
I beg to move.
Lord Beaverbrook: I fully understand the purpose of this amendment. It is to sanction the practice known as character merchandising; that is, the granting of a licence by a person who has created, for example, a children's cartoon character, allowing the use of that character as a trade mark on goods such as clothing or toys. This is of course a practice undreamt of at the time of the 1938 Act.
In the Government's view however this amendment should not be accepted. In the first place it would not be timely, as the Department of Trade and Industry is currently considering what changes in this area of the law are desirable, particularly in the light of developments in the European Community. Character merchandising is one of the subjects on which the department has consulted interested circles, but it is in the context of a more general look at trade mark law that any necessary action should he taken rather than in this Bill.
In the second place, even accepting that some change in the law is needed, I am not convinced that a simple repeal of subsection (6) of Section 28 provides an answer. That provision was included to prevent the practice of dealing in trade marks as a commodity in their own right by means of speculative registration by a person who has no intention of using the marks but who instead offers to sell or licence them to bona fide users. We would not wish to open the door to this practice and would, therefore, before agreeing to repeal subsection (6) want to consider carefully whether some other provision should replace it in order to control trafficking of this kind.
It is for that reason that I cannot accept the noble Lord's amendment as drafted at the moment.
Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran: I thank the Minister for his reply. The Bill already contains matters relating to trade marks. The amendment is simple and is easily incorporated into the Bill. The last major review of copyright was in 1956 and also in the Trade Marks Act 1938. The repeal is urgently required by industry and if this opportunity in the Bill is missed there may not be another for many years. The law of trade marks is part of the overall scheme of intellectual property legislation and it is of great interest in the competitive atmosphere that the Government are endeavouring to encourage in this country.
After consideration of what the Minister has said, I shall withdraw the amendment on the
1220
understanding that the matter will be raised again at Report.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Beaverbrook Lord Beaverbrook moved Amendment No. 316:
Page 189, line 38 column 3, at end insert ("Section 88.").
The noble Lord said: This is a minor correction to ensure that the list of repeals in Schedule 7 is complete. Section 88 of the Patents Act 1977 is repealed by paragraph 14 of Schedule 5. It ought, therefore, to be included in the Schedule 7 list. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Schedule 7, as amended, agreed to.
In the Title:
Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran moved Amendment No. 317:
Line 3, after ("designs") insert ("and trade marks").
The noble Lord said: I have already spoken to this amendment. I beg to move.
Lord Beaverbrook: I was not quite sure what the noble Lord intended by this amendment. Read literally it would cause the title to refer to "a design right in trade marks". This of course does not make sense. I assume that his concern is to ensure proper mention of trade marks, but this is already achieved in lines 5 ("trade mark agents") and 9 ("fraudulent application or use of a trade mark") and no other provisions in the Bill relate to trade marks.
The Government are currently considering what changes to trade marks law are desirable, particularly in the light of developments in the European Community. When the details of all these changes are known it will be necessary to have separate legislation dedicated to trade marks. I hope, therefore, that we can leave it until that point, which I trust will not be too far off.
Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran: I am obliged to the Minister. When he says that it will not be too far off, can he give any indication as to whether this is a matter which can be dealt with before this Bill leaves this place?
Lord Beaverbrook: Absolutely not.
Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran: With great regret, I cannot understand the reply of the Minister, but in view of the lateness of the hour I will not press the matter; although as this is the last amendment of the Committee stage I had hoped to achieve some success. Unhappily I have not done so.
Before I ask leave to withdraw the amendment, I thank the Minister for his courtesy and for the way in which he has treated these matters in this long Committee stage.
Lord Beaverbrook: I am grateful to all noble Lords who have participated in many days of long deliberation in Committee on this complicated Bill. When we started the proceedings I said that I should

1221
be interested to hear the views of Members of the Committee and I have found them particularly helpful with their comments. I hope that we are working along the road of improving this Bill as we continue with our proceedings.
Lord Williams of Elvel: I join with the noble Lord, Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran, in thanking the noble Lord, Lord Beaverbrook, for his patience and hard work and also the noble Earl, Lord Dundee. They have both worked extremely hard on this Bill and I believe I am right in saying that this is the first major Bill that the noble Lord, Lord Beaverbrook, has piloted through this place. It is a long and complex Bill and he has handled it extremely well.
Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran: I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
House resumed: Bill reported with amendments.
House adjourned at two minutes before one o'clock.

  DTI: CLOSURE OF SCHEMES
  DTI: CLOSURE OF SCHEMES
  KIMBERLEY CARLILE
  KIMBERLEY CARLILE
  SOCIAL FUND INSPECTORS
  SOCIAL FUND INSPECTORS
  BLOOD GLUCOSE TESTING
  BLOOD GLUCOSE TESTING
  GRANT RELATED EXPENDITURE: DoE PUBLICATIONS
  GRANT RELATED EXPENDITURE: DoE PUBLICATIONS
  BUSES: ACCIDENTS TO PASSENGERS
  BUSES: ACCIDENTS TO PASSENGERS
  AIR TRANSPORT IN EUROPE
  AIR TRANSPORT IN EUROPE
  NORTHERN IRELAND FORESTRY: PLANTING
  NORTHERN IRELAND FORESTRY: PLANTING
  NORTHERN IRELAND: DoE STAFF LEVELS
  NORTHERN IRELAND: DoE STAFF LEVELS
  NORTHERN IRELAND AREAS OF SPECIAL SCIENTIFIC INTEREST
  NORTHERN IRELAND AREAS OF SPECIAL SCIENTIFIC INTEREST
  NORTHERN IRELAND: PROTECTION OF WILD BIRDS
  NORTHERN IRELAND: PROTECTION OF WILD BIRDS
  CHIEFTAIN TANK REPLACEMENT
  CHIEFTAIN TANK REPLACEMENT