Sitting of 25 July 1988

Preamble
The House met at half-past Two o'clock
PRAYERS
[Mr. Speaker in the Chair]
PRAYERS

  PRIVATE BUSINESS
  British Railways (No. 2) Bill (By Order)
  Order for consideration read.
  To be considered tomorrow.
  Newcastle upon Tyne Town Moor Bill [Lords] (By Order)
  Read a Second time and committed.
  Harwich Harbour Bill [Lords] (By Order)
  Order for Second Reading read.
  To be read a Second time tomorrow.

Oral Answers to Questions
  ENERGY

    Magnox Power Stations
    Mr. Corbyn: To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what recommendations he has received from the Nuclear Installations Inspectorate on the case for additional safety measures for Magnox power stations.
    The Secretary of State for Energy (Mr. Cecil Parkinson): The Health and Safety Executive's Nuclear Installations Inspectorate has asked the licensees of the Magnox power stations to carry out a long-term safety review for each station. These reviews are assessed by the NII, whose findings and requirements for continued operation are being published.
    Mr. Corbyn: What is the cost per station and in total of all the safety measures required by the NII? Is the Minister prepared to review the unit cost of electricity generated by Magnox nuclear power stations and, in the light of that review, to consider phasing out those stations on grounds of safety, environmental damage and cost of eleclricity generation?
    Mr. Parkinson: No, Sir. Each Magnox station is independently subject to long-term review. Two reviews have so far been completed. In the case of Berkeley, the cost of making the changes necessary to enable the station to continue to work until 1992 simply was not justified, whereas in the case of Bradwell it was. These are matters for the commercial judgment of the Central Electricity Generating Board, coupled with the fact that the NII must be satisfied before issuing a certificate and allowing the station to continue. Each station will be reviewed individually. It will be for the NII to say what is necessary to be done and for the CEGB to decide whether it is worth doing.
    Mr. Marlow: Will my right hon. Friend tell the sandal-wearing, nut cutlet-eating—[HON. MEMBERS: "The Guardian-reading."]—yes, The Guardian-reading, bearded fanatics who have it in for nuclear power that in reality the environmental danger of fossil-fuel generated electricity as it is now produced is far greater than that of nuclear power? Will my right hon. Friend consider implementing an urgent programme to extend the amount of nuclear power generation in this country?
    Mr. Parkinson: My hon. Friend is right. There is a strong argument that the safest and least-polluting source of energy is nuclear power, when installations are properly built, designed and regulated.
    Mr. Matthew Taylor: In view of the great public interest, will the Secretary of State make available the full report on Berkeley and not just a summary? Will he also state the time scale for reports on Oldbury, Trawsfynydd and Sizewell A?
    Mr. Parkinson: The CEGB has had the report on Berkeley. It has announced that the station will be closed and will cease to operate from March next year. That is a matter for the CEGB and the NII. The NII is clearly satisfied that it is safe for the station to operate during that period, or it would have withdrawn the licence. The NII has made recommendations about what would need to be done to keep the station working and the CEGB has decided not to spend the money, but the main fact is that the station is safe.
    Mr. John Garrett: Will the Minister please come clean about the cost of nuclear safety, the cost of decommission-ing the old Magnox stations, which is roughly estimated at £2·5 billion, and the uneconomic cost of nuclear power in general? Is he aware that electricity privatisation will be subject to the Financial Services Act 1986, which makes it a criminal offence to make deliberately or recklessly misleading forecasts to induce shareholders to invest?
    Mr. Parkinson: As I am sure the hon. Gentleman knows, it is very hard to put an exact figure on the cost of decommissioning. The process could take up to 100 years. There are three stages. The first is withdrawal of the fuel and the second is the immediate decommissioning. There then is the decision on how long the station will be allowed to be maintained in a secure state so that the natural reduction in radiation can take place, which will make it safer for the workers when the final decommissioning is carried out. Provision is made for each station and is estimated at about £300 million over the period of decommissioning, which could be up to 100 years. I should add that coal—the Opposition's preferred option—is a massively expensive pollutant. If costs could be attached to coal with the same certainty as they are to nuclear energy, coal might look very dubious. Indeed, there is a school of thought that the British electricity user has been subsidising the mining industry to the tune of about £1 billion per year for the past 10 years.

    Electricity Industry (Regulator)
    Mr. Rost: To ask the Secretary of State for Energy when he expects to appoint the Regulator to oversee the electricity industry in the private sector.
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Energy (Mr. Michael Spicer): We plan to appoint the Regulator and have his office established by the time the industry has been reorganised for privatisation.
    Mr. Rost: Is my hon. Friend aware of the widely held view, especially among prospective independent electricity producers who can provide the competition that the Government want, that the Regulator should be appointed as soon as possible in the transition period so that the contractual arrangements can be monitored in the run-up to privatisation?
    Mr. Spicer: We clearly cannot appoint a Regulator until the necessary legislation has passed through Parliament. Until the Regulator is appointed and the regulatory regime is in place, the Government will oversee, or, to use my hon. Friend's word, "monitor", the electricity supply industry's preparation for privatisation. In particular, we shall oversee the negotiations of the initial contracts between distribution boards and the CEGB's successors. We shall not permit practices designed to stifle competition or to prevent distributors from making contracts with new sources of supply.
    Mr. Prescott: Will the Minister confirm that the profit rates allowed by the Regulator for privatised electricity will be double those allowed for the public sector, which will confirm the fears of industry and consumer groups that Britain's electricity prices will move from being among the cheapest to becoming among the most expensive in the world? Will he also confirm that the salary of Lord Marshall, chairman of the new privatised company, will treble to £200,000 for managing a company that is 30 per cent. smaller? Will the Regulator be able to consider that exploitation of the consumer?
    Mr. Spicer: I cannot confirm either of those questions, the second of which is a figment of the hon. Gentleman's imagination. As to profit regulation, the hon. Gentleman clearly has not seen the procedents for regulatory regimes or what we have written about them, because they will operate, not on profit regulation, but on price regulation

    Coal Industry
    Mr. Allen McKay: To ask the Secretary of State for Energy if he has discussed recently with the chairman of British Coal the effects of privatisation of the electricity industry upon the British coal industry.
    Mr. Parkinson: I meet the chairman of British Coal regularly to discuss all aspects of the coal industry.
    Mr. McKay: Given that the paper sponsored by the Financial Times, "Coal on the market", says that the deep mines which could compete in 1995 will be closed in 1990 if the Government encourage a free-for-all in coal imports, given that the International Coal Development Institute has said that nuclear power is never likely to be able to compete with coal-fired power stations, and given British Coal's argument that it will need a 10-year contract after the privatisation of the electricity industry to secure the coal industry's future and the energy future of this country, will the Secretary of State stop considering his long-term political future and consider instead the long-term energy requirements of this country and give British Coal the contract?
    Mr. Parkinson: Under this Government more than £9 billion has been invested in the coal industry, £6 billion of which has been in new capital equipment. The Government have shown a commitment to the industry that no previous Labour Government have matched. Our objective is to produce a modern British coal industry that is capable of beating foreign competition, not because it is protected against it, but because it outperforms it. Given our plans for the electricity industry, which envisage a substantial market for coal, and the amount of money invested in the industry to put it in a position to compete, the hon. Gentleman should begin to share my optimism that British Coal has a good future.
    Mr. Dickens: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the future of the coal industry is in the hands of the workers? High productivity, flexible working, less time off work and fewer strikes will help the industry to compete with the rest of the world. Other countries are exporting coal to the United Kingdom, and I believe that the workers are beginning to realise that.
    Mr. Parkinson: My hon. Friend is correct, and the point is clearly understood by many people who work in the coal industry. For example, the Scottish miners have made it quite clear that they are prepared to adopt flexible working if that is a way to secure their jobs. The Welsh miners have made it quite clear that they want Margam, and they are prepared to adopt flexible working. The only people who appear not to understand the need for better productivity in the mining industry are Opposition Members and some trade union leaders in the industry.
    Mr. Eadie: Is this anti-coal Secretary of State aware that there is widespread opposition to freeing private generators to buy coal at the cheapest possible price available—his stated policy—irrespective of whether it damages the British coal industry? Will he tell the House what reply he has made to the warnings of the chairman of British Coal about the policy that the right hon. Gentleman is hell-bent on pursuing?
    Mr. Parkinson: During the previous energy Question Time the hon. Gentleman said that the Scottish coal industry was about to close down and that my remark, that I felt that agreement would be reached on a sensible basis, was not true. His assertions have been exposed as completely untrue and ill-founded. His earlier assertions about my approach to the coal industry are equally ill-founded. I believe that British Coal has a future free from the sort of protection and life support systems that the hon. Gentleman appears to believe are its only means of survival

    Piper Alpha Disaster
    Mr. Chapman: To ask the Secretary of State for Energy if he will make a statement on the daily loss of oil and gas volumes as a result of the Piper Alpha disaster; and what proportions of the total United Kingdom production these represent.
    Mr. Parkinson: At the time of the disaster the daily oil production of the Piper Alpha platform was 120,000 to 130,000 barrels a day. Some 150,000 therms of gas per day were also produced and sold to British Gas.
    Five other fields linked to Piper, producing an additional 180,000 barrels of oil and 350,000 therms of
    6
    sales of gas per day, are currently shut down, but should be back in production within a few months. The total combined loss in daily production of Piper and those other fields at the time of maximum impact is equivalent to about 12·5 per cent. and 1 per cent. of total United Kingdom production of oil and gas respectively.
    Mr. Chapman: I thank my right hon. Friend for giving the House those figures. Does he agree that however serious the disaster is from an economic point of view, it is of paramount importance that the safety of those working on our rigs and winning valuable resources from under the North sea is the main issue, and that nothing must be done to prejudice their safety? Would he like to take this opportunity to comment on whether those figures, serious as they may be, have had a bad impact on our balance of payments, or whether they are not as bad as was first thought?
    Mr. Parkinson: I wholeheartedly agree with my hon Friend—I am sure that the whole House does—that safety in the North sea must be of absolutely prime importance.
    On my hon. Friend's second point, I read today an estimate that it would cost about £500 million a year to our balance of payments. We regard that as excessive. It is based on the assumption that the fields associated with Piper will remain out of action for the rest of the financial year. We believe that they will be back in action well before then. Our estimate of the impact is something less than £300 million.
    Mr. Salmond: Does the Secretary of State accept that the environment and safety provisions in the North sea originated when early production from the North sea was an overwhelming priority? Might it not now be time to review that priority and the safety regimes?
    Mr. Parkinson;As the hon. Gentleman knows, a number of different bodies take part in certifying the platforms and safety in the North sea. The independent certification authorities are responsible for the equipment and construction of the rigs; the Department of Transport for the safety arrangements, fire detection and fire fighting; the Civil Aviation Authority for the helicopters; and that under the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974, which was extended to the North sea in 1977, my Department's inspectorate carries out its duties in the North sea. Therefore, a substantial range of different bodies check different aspects in the North sea. I have set up the inquiry. If the inquiry recommends that things should be done differently, we will accept those recommendations
    Mr. Barry Field: I understand that the advice of my right hon. Friend's Department on the durability of North sea oil supplies featured heavily in the minds of the military planners when establishing the amount of the tonnage required to service this country during time of armed conflict. In view of this dreadful disaster, will my right hon. Friend review that strategic advice.
    Mr. Parkinson: I had not planned to do so to date. I hope that my hon. Friend heard my earlier answer, in which I pointed out that, at worst, the loss of production is about 12·5 per cent. of our total oil production and that we expect that figure to fall sharply when the associated fields come back on stream, which we expect to be within a few months.
    Mr. Doran: The Secretary of State has already mentioned the public inquiry into the Piper Alpha tragedy. Many of the victims' relatives and survivors will wish to be represented at that public inquiry, which may be important to their compensation claims against whoever is responsible. Bearing in mind the precedents of other public inquiries, will the Secretary of State consider extending legal aid or meeting the costs of that representation for those victims and survivors?
    Mr. Parkinson: I cannot commit the Government to doing that at the moment, but I am aware of the other precedents and am giving the matter serious thought.
    Mr. Cormack: Is my right hon. Friend aware that his promise to accept the inquiry's recommendations will be reassuring to many people?
    Mr. Parkinson: The overwhelming priority is to have a regime in the North sea that is as safe as possible. If the inquiry identifies ways of improving the present regime, of course we will adopt them, because we all have a prime interest in safety

    Acid Rain
    Mr. Pike: To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what recent representations he has received for additional retrofitting of flue gas desulphurisation equipment at existing power stations to reduce the problems of acid rain.
    Mr. Michael Spicer: A few letters have been received by my Department on this and other aspects of acid rain.
    Mr. Pike: Does the Minister accept that there is obviously concern in Europe and in certain parts of the United Kingdom about the pollution and acid rain that is caused by our power stations? Is he satisfied with the CEGB's rate of progress in the retro-fitting that has already been agreed? Will he speed that up, and does he agree that there should be more?
    Mr. Spicer: We accept that there is some anxiety on this matter in Europe and elsewhere. That is why the Government are committed to agreeing to the EC large combustion plant directive, by which sulphur dioxide emissions will be reduced by 40 per cent. on the 1980 figures by 1998, and by 60 per cent. by 2003. That comes on top of the 40 per cent. reduction since 1970.
    Sir Trevor Skeet: Will the cost of the massive regulatory system to be introduced following privatisation be passed to the distribution industry or to the consumers, and not left with the manufacturers of electricity?
    Mr. Spicer: The passing on of generating costs is being seriously considered in the context of consultations on regulation. I assure my hon. Friend that we are also seriously considering any discrimination between those which have flue gas desulphurisation and those which do not.
    Mr. Barry Jones: May I have an assurance from the Minister that if Connah's Quay power station in my constituency, which is now redundant, were brought back on stream post-privatisation, desulphurisation equipment would be fitted? Does the Minister understand that up to 12 redundant power stations are being considered for use if privatisation goes forward? Does he know on average
    8
    how much it would cost per power station to fit desulphurisation equipment? We should be told those figures.
    Mr. Spicer: The cost per large station of, say, 2,000 MW is about £220 million. The answer to the hon. Gentleman's first question is yes, that would be required. It is a matter for Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Pollution whether smaller stations should be fitted with this equipment.
    Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: Is my hon. Friend aware that one coal-fired power station fitted with this equipment will use about 300,000 tonnes of limestone a year and will produce large quantities of sludge which will somehow have to be disposed of? Does he agree that we are solving one problem by creating another and that it would be preferable simply to burn less fossil fuel?
    Mr. Spicer: My hon. Friend makes his own point in the last part of his question. His figure of 300,000 tonnes of limestone is correct, but it must be put in context. It is 0·3 per cent. of the United Kingdom's annual production.
    Mr. Wigley: In view of the Secretary of State's comments that if the full environmental cost of coal were compared with nuclear electricity the comparison would be very different, is it not incumbent upon the Government to make sure that all the expenditure necessary to minimise acid rain is undertaken so that we do not suffer the environmental consequences that Wales is presently suffering?
    Mr. Spicer: My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State said and I repeat that we are taking major steps to reduce acid rain to 60 per cent. of the 1980 figure by the year 2003

    Nirex
    Mr. Simon Coombs: To ask the Secretary of State for Energy when he next expects to meet the chairman of Nirex and what matters he proposes to discuss.
    Mr. Michael Spicer: My right hon. Friend and I meet the chairman of Nirex from time to time. We discuss a range of issues.
    Mr. Coombs: Is my hon. Friend aware of the widespread natural concern about the eventual location of the low-level waste disposal site? Does he agree that there is a need for Nirex to reach a decision on this matter as soon as it reasonably can? In view of the announcement in the House last week by our right hon. Friend the Secretary of State about the future of the fast breeder reactor at Dounreay, will my hon. Friend now undertake that if Nirex puts before the Department a choice of locations which include Dounreay, he will give favourable consideration to Dounreay on the grounds of the job creation that will result from the location of a low-level site there?
    Mr. Spicer: I entirely understand my hon. Friend's view, which, I am sure, is shared by others, that a decision on the disposal of intermediate and low-level waste should be reached as soon as possible. We expect Nirex to report on its conclusions at the turn of the year or early in the new year. Until then it is keeping its options open on all possible disposal sites, including, but not especially,

    9
    Dounreay. I cannot give my hon. Friend any further assurances, but we are aware of the need for a speedy resolution of this matter.
    Mrs. Margaret Ewing: Will the Minister pay special attention to the announcement at the weekend by the vice-chairman of the Highlands and Islands Development Board that the idea of using Dounreay as a base for the dumping of nuclear waste is completely unacceptable? Will the Department of Energy bear in mind that the dumping of low-level and intermediate waste in the Highlands and Islands is greatly resented by people, who see their enduring employment from fishing, agriculture and tourism being adversely affected?
    Mr. Spicer: I think that there is some controversy in the area. I understand that Caithness council is quite in favour of deep disposal at Dounreay. I repeat what I said earlier. No decisions have been taken on this matter and all options are being kept open.
    Mr. Moss: Will my hon. Friend allay the fears of some of my constituents who are worried about rumours that Nirex intends to bury nuclear waste beneath the sea bed in the Wash? Will he confirm that as yet Nirex has made no decisions, and does he agree that the technology required for sub-sea burial is still unproven?
    Mr. Spicer: Deep sub-sea burial is certainly one of the options that Nirex is considering. The second option is burying on land, and the third is burying under the sea from the land.
    Mr. Cryer: Will the Minister bear in mind that, among the critics of coal-fired powers stations on the Conservative Benches, there are a number of enthusiasts for nuclear power, led by the hon. Member for Northampton, North (Mr. Marlow)? Will the Minister communicate that information to the chairman of Nirex, so that he can sound them out and they can organise a welcome for the dumping of radioactive waste in every one of the constituencies of the Tory Members who are enthusiasts for nuclear power stations?
    Mr. Spicer: I shall certainly ensure that the chairman of Nirex sees a copy of Hansard, so that he can read what the hon. Gentleman has said.

    Electricity Transmission
    Dr. Michael Clark: To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what research his Department is sponsoring into the technology of electricity transmission; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Michael Spicer: My Department does not sponsor any research on the transmission of electricity. The CEGB is currently spending about £4·5 million a year on transmission research.
    Dr. Clark: Will the application of new materials to electricity transmission lead to less unsightly pylons in the country, particularly in south-east Essex? Is there any commercial application for the materials that are associated with superconductivity, so that the size of the pylons can be reduced, making them smaller and less obtrusive?
    Mr. Spicer: I am not a technical expert on this subject. The new superconducting materials were only discovered in the past 18 months or so. I understand that it is too early to say how they will affect developments in transmission.
    Mr. Matthew Taylor: The Minister will be aware that, at present, transmission losses are not passed on in costs for getting electricity down to Cornwall. It is delivered to Indian Queens, and losses are paid for only after that. Can the Minister say whether that will still be the case after privatisation, or whether people in areas such as Cornwall, where there are considerable transmission losses in getting power there, will have to pay extra costs?
    Mr. Spicer: I can assure the hon. Gentleman that the transmission costs will be transparent, both for the supergrid and for lower voltages. Everyone will know what the costs are, as will the Regulator when he decides which costs are allowable. That is one of the great advantages of the privatised system. Everyone will know to a far greater extent where he stands.
    Mr. Knapman: Can the Minister confirm that the decision to close Berkeley power station, which is in my constituency, was made on financial grounds, and certainly not on safety grounds?
    Mr. Spicer: I can confirm that. It was entirely a matter of the CEGB deciding that it would not be commercially sensible to carry out the requirements that the Nuclear Installations Inspectorate had laid down. It was entirely a commercial decision.

    British Coal Corporation
    Dr. Reid: To ask the Secretary of State for Energy when he last met the chairman of the British Coal Corporation; and if he will list the subjects discussed.
    Mr. Janner: To ask the Secretary of State for Energy when he last met the chairman of British Coal; and what matters were discussed.
    Mr. Eadie: To ask the Secretary of State for Energy when he next proposes to meet the chairman of British Coal to discuss matters affecting the coal industry.
    Mr. Strang: To ask the Secretary of State for Energy when he last met the chairman of British Coal; and if he will list the subjects discussed.
    Mr. Parkinson: I meet the chairman of British Coal regularly to discuss all aspects of the coal industry.
    Mr. Janner: Has the Secretary of State discussed with the chairman of British Coal the rumour that is going around that the Government intend to close seven of the eight coal-powered stations in the Leicestershire, Staffordshire and south Derbyshire coalfields area by the year 2000? Can the Secretary of State confirm that it is intended instead to build coal-fired stations near the coast and to use imported coal? The Secretary of State will understand—if the rumours are correct—just how horrified coal miners, their families and all the people in those areas are.
    Mr. Parkinson: I can truthfully tell the hon. and learned Gentleman that that is the first I have ever heard of that suggestion and that it has never been discussed at any time with me.
    Mr. Eadie: When the Secretary of State told me last Question Time that an agreement between the SSEB and British Coal was imminent, was he aware that that agreement would last only until March next year? Does he agree that no industry, never mind the coal industry, can plan its operations over such a short period? In the light of his meetings with the chairman of British Coal, can the Secretary of State supply the House with information on the likelihood of British Coal taking the SSEB to court over the Longannet and Cockenzie power stations?
    Mr. Parkinson: Last time we had energy questions we were approaching the deadline for agreement between the two parties, and I said that I had reason to believe that they would reach agreement. I hope that they will use the next year to negotiate to put the arrangements between them on to a long-term basis. I made it clear that both my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland and I believed that there was a good future for Scottish coal, especially with the strengthening of the inter-connector, which will open up the English market for Scottish electricity, which has previously been closed to it.
    Mr. Eadie: What about the courts?
    Mr. Parkinson: On the subject of the courts, the two parties are negotiating. I hope that the question of the interim interdict can be put on one side and that they can focus on reaching long-term agreement.
    Mr. Ashby: Will my right hon. Friend congratulate the chairman on the most successful visit that he organised last Friday for my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State and me to opencast sites in my constituency of Leicestershire, North-West? Will my right hon. Friend remind the chairman that there are a large number of areas of dereliction caused by mineral extraction and that it is in those areas, and those areas only, that opencast mining should take place in the next 10 to 15 years?
    Mr. Parkinson: I heard from my hon. Friend this morning that he had found the visit extremely interesting. I think we all recognise that there is an important place for opencast coal in meeting our future coal needs. I am sure that the hon. Member for Midlothian (Mr. Eadie), the Opposition Front Bench spokesman who speaks for Scotland on these matters, will share my pleasure that the Northern Ireland Electricity Company has decided that Kilroot will be a coal-burning station and that that coal will be supplied from Ayrshire on a very competitive basis.
    Mr. Andrew Mitchell: When my right hon. Friend next speaks to the chairman of British Coal, will he make a point of congratulating the Nottinghamshire miners on turning in an operating profit of £48 million during the past year, as well as on the very steep increases in productivity obtained by those miners during the same period? Will he make it clear that the important point is for the industry single-mindedly to pursue increases in productivity as the best guarantee of competitiveness and the long-term future of the industry, regardless of whether it is in the public or the private sector?
    Mr. Parkinson: I shall draw my hon. Friend's remarks to the chairman's attention. I repeat that this point is recognised increasingly throughout the industry. In the
    12
    past 12 weeks, six successive productivity records have been achieved, so the men working in the industry recognise that their future is literally in their hands.
    Mr. Redmond: Does the Secretary of State agree that British Coal pensioners who helped produce coal to meet the needs of the country during two world wars—with blood, sweat and tears—receive a smokeless fuel allowance that is totally inadequate? When he next meets the chairman of the Coal Board, will he ask for an increase for those pensioners and widows?
    Mr. Parkinson: I confess that I have not come across that point before. I shall examine the matter and bring it to the attention of the chairman

    Offshore Installations
    Mr. Hanley: To ask the Secretary of State for Energy if he will explain the detailed procedures used to ensure that offshore installations are properly designed and maintained.
    The Minister of State, Department of Energy (Mr. Peter Morrison): Every installation in our offshore waters must be in possession of a valid certificate of fitness. To obtain that, the owner submits to one of the independent certifying authorities information to enable an assessment of the design to be carried out. The certifying authority is required to carry out a major survey of the installation and its equipment before a certificate of fitness, which is valid for up to five years, can be issued. The authority must also carry out an annual survey.
    Every offshore installation and its equipment is required, under current regulations, to be properly maintained.
    Mr. Hanley: Clearly, each of the steps that my right hon. Friend has set out is vital in trying to maintain safety. Can he tell the House when the technical investigation that he has set in motion over Piper Alpha is likely to be completed?
    Mr. Morrison: The technical investigation began almost immediately after we had announced it, which was shortly after the disaster. A lot of work has already been done and a number of people—about 90—have been interviewed. However, it must be said that some of the evidence is at the bottom of the seabed, and hence that will dictate the speed at which the investigation can proceed. However, it is the intention of those conducting that investigation to proceed as fast as they practicably can.
    Mr. Prescott: The Secretary of State has said that safety is the first priority in the North sea. Can the right hon. Gentleman explain why the Department's report into the 1984 explosion on the Piper Alpha rig is now to be made available to the inquiry, but not available to those who have worked on that rig since 1984? What action is he now taking to reverse the decision to withdraw funds from the Institute of Oceanographic Sciences, which is a world authority on wave effects and oil rig and metal fatigue, the study of which are essential to safety in the North sea?
    Mr. Morrison: The hon. Gentleman has heard on many occasions that the 1984 report will be made available to Lord Cullen. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and I said the same when we met the trade unions. It will be for Lord Cullen to decide whether to publish it, but my

    13
    right hon. Friend has written to him to make the points that the trade union delegation—which approached the matter in a constructive manner last week—made to my right hon. Friend and myself. The hon. Gentleman will appreciate that the Institute of Oceanographic Sciences is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Science

  THE ARTS

    Business Spending
    Mrs. Virginia Bottomley: To ask the Minister for the Arts, if he will make a statement on the progress of his policy to promote business spending on the arts.
    The Minister for the Arts (Mr. Richard Luce): I was glad to participate in the launch of the business in the arts scheme by the Association for Business Sponsorship of the Arts last week. I shall be supporting it with £25,000 for each of the first two years. It joins the already successful business sponsorship incentive scheme in promoting business spending and practical help for the arts.
    Mrs. Bottomley: As a member of the Association for Business Sponsorship of the Arts, I welcome my right hon. Friend's new initiative and his encouragement of partnership between business and the arts, which has led to the development of high-quality art. Will my right hon. Friend outline the objectives of the new scheme? What steps will he take to spread further information about it?
    Mr. Luce: I am grateful to my hon. Friend, who has continued to give encouragement to business support for the arts. The purpose of the scheme, which is organised independently by the Association for Business Sponsorship of the Arts, is to complement and supplement sponsorship and donations from business to the arts by giving practical support by the provision of expertise, which many businesses in the arts world and arts organisations will welcome most warmly, the loan of people with particular expertise in specific areas, and generally to help to provide training for people in the arts world in the organisation of their businesses. I am glad to say that eight businesses have come in as sponsors, and I have made a Government contribution to this exercise.
    Mr. Robert Sheldon: I welcome any business spending on the arts, but will the right hon. Gentleman consider the reverse aspect—business-spoilation of the arts? I am referring to the sale of the Lyceum theatre, which is a disgraceful business. Will the Minister ensure that he investigates this matter thoroughly with a view to ending this shameful episode in the history of the Lyceum and gets it restored as a proper theatre in London?
    Mr. Luce: I welcome the fact that the right hon. Gentleman supports more business spending and support for the arts world. I understand the concern and anxieties that have been expressed by many people in the London arts world about the future use of the Lyceum theatre. It is, of course, principally the responsibility of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment, with whom I am presently in touch. The right hon. Gentleman will be aware that this is a complex problem and that it is not straightforward. There are certain obligations that the residuary body must discharge to the London ratepayers. Nevertheless, I am keeping a close interest in this matter.
    Mr. Jessel: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the 50-fold increase in business sponsorship of the arts from £600,000 in 1976 to £30 million in 1987 is a tremendous success story, which has benefited audiences, artists and sponsors alike?
    Mr. Luce: My hon. Friend is absolutely right It is interesting to note that the business sponsorship incentive scheme has now generated, as a result of the awards that we shall announce this week, £20 million of additional money for the arts. We now have 770 first-time sponsors as a result of the scheme and all the evidence suggests that the vast majority of those sponsors wish to support the arts for a long time.
    Mr. Fisher: Returning to the question asked by my right hon. Friend the Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Mr. Sheldon), why has the Minister for the Arts not spoken out about the Lyceum before? Everyone else has—the Arts Council, the Theatres Trust—but there has been a deafening silence from the Minister on this subject. Will he now approach the London Residuary Body and his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment and urge them to do what they have the power to do and use their discretion to consider some of the other bids, which would preserve this great theatre as a theatre?
    Mr. Luce: I have, of course, retained an interest in this problem, but, as I have already told the House, it is not my direct responsibility. It is the responsibility of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment. He has certain obligations, and so does the London Residuary Body. Those obligations are laid down and clearly stated. My right hon. Friend has obligations towards the ratepayers of London. All these factors must be taken into account. I made my position clear in answer to the earlier question.
    Mr. Cormack: Is my right hon. Friend aware that his sympathy, which was evident in his reply to the last question and to that of the right hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Mr. Sheldon), will be much appreciated? I express the hope that he will be able to persuade our right hon. Friend that the theatre should be saved.
    Mr. Luce: I am grateful to my hon. Friend, who retains a close interest in all these subjects. I should remind him and the House that this is not a straightforward issue. There are many complex aspects to it. As I understand it, an appeal is pending with regard to whether Mecca will continue to have responsibility for the Lyceum. All these factors must be taken into account

    Merseyside Arts
    Mr. Wareing: To ask the Minister for the Arts if he will call for an urgent report from the Arts Council on the funds allocated to Merseyside Arts.
    Mr. Luce: I see no reason to intervene in this way between the Arts Council and Merseyside Arts.
    Mr. Wareing: I am sure that all who are engaged in the arts in Merseyside will be saddened by that answer. I hope that the Minister will review it. Is he aware that. over the next three years there will be an estimated reduction of 7½ per cent. in the income that Merseyside Arts receives from

    15
    the Arts Council? Taking into account the slashing of local government grants from central Government, which makes it difficult for local government to make up the difference, and the abolition of the community programme, which affects many people in the arts on Merseyside, Merseyside Arts will be in for real touble. Does the right hon. Gentleman not realise that, in an area of declining resources, his answer will come as a blow?
    Mr. Luce: Merseyside Arts will receive £1,100,000 worth of resources from the Arts Council. It is for the Arts Council to decide how it distributes its resources between the various regional organisations. Merseyside Arts is fourth highest per capita in terms of the amount of resources that it receives. The hon. Gentleman, who is interested in these things in Liverpool, will realise that additional resources are earmarked through the Arts Council to help all the regions of this country. They include incentive funding and extra help for touring. I hope that the Merseyside area will benefit from that.
    Mr. Rathbone: In the context of the arts on Merseyside, will the Minister take this opportunity to welcome the opening of the Tate of the North in Liverpool, which is a magnificent extension of the Tate's activities, which are already well established in London?
    Mr. Luce: I warmly respond to what my hon. Friend has said. This is a good example of how, by spreading our national activities outside London, we bring advantage to many parts of the country. The Tate of the North, and the vast range of other arts facilities in Liverpool and Merseyside, show the enormous scope that exists for the authorities in Liverpool to exploit this opportunity and attract more tourists, thereby earning more money for the arts organisations.
    Mr. Speaker: I call Question No. 51.
    Mr. Campbell-Savours: What about Question No. 48, Mr. Speaker?
    Mr. Speaker: I saw the hon. Gentleman in his place, but I had notification that he had withdrawn this question. I believe that that was the Minister's impression, too.
    Mr. Campbell-Savours: I do not know what your Office was told, Mr. Speaker, but I have not withdrawn it.
    Mr. Speaker: If that is so, perhaps the Minister would agree to answer Question No. 48

    National Theatre
    Mr. Campbell-Savours: To ask the Minister for the Arts if he will establish an inquiry into production costs at the National Theatre.

    Table showing sponsorships of and donations to the arts in excess of £1 million since January 1988

    Organisation

    Donor

    Amount

    Date of announcement

    Purpose

    South Bank Programme

    British and Commonwealth Holdings (sponsorship)

    £1 million (over 5 years)

    January 1988

    Music

    Tate Gallery

    Anonymous

    US$6·5 million

    20 June 1988

    To set up American Fund for Tate Gallery

    National Gallery

    Mr. Walter Annenberg, KBE

    £2·85 million

    22 June 1988

    Restoration of Impressionist and post-Impressionist rooms

    Mr. Luce: The Arts Council evaluates the work of its clients on a regular basis, and I see no need to intervene. Assessments take account of all aspects of the National Theatre's performance—artistic, financial and managerial.
    Mr. Campbell-Savours: If the costs of the National Theatre are escalating and its grant is cut, as it was in real terms this year, how can it afford to pay proper wages and salaries to all its employees? Will the Minister ensure that next year the National Theatre is given enough grant to ensure that those people are properly remunerated?
    Mr. Luce: For the first time in its history the National Theatre is entitled to make arrangements with the Arts Council for three-year funding, which gives it a solid base upon which to plan in the long term. It has excellent management, an excellent artistic director, an excellent administrator and an excellent board, which has authority over the progress of the theatre. They are doing their best to raise resources, not just from Government, but from the private sector. The more they can do that, the more they will strengthen their affairs in the long term. In addition, they are entitled to incentive funding, if they qualify, and to extra funds for touring the country, which should bring benefits to them as well as to the regions

    Donations
    Mr. David Martin: To ask the Minister for the Arts what information he has about donations to the arts from private or corporate sources in excess of £1 million in the six months to the end of June.
    Mr. Luce: I am extremely grateful to all benefactors of the arts. I shall circulate a list in the Official Report.
    Mr. Martin: Will my hon. Friend confirm that in the past month there have been four donations of more than £1 million each? Does it not show that interest and investment in this form of funding for the arts is thriving?
    Mr. Luce: My hon. Friend is right. In one week in early July alone the arts received £7 million of support by way of donations or sponsorship. That is a clear demonstration of the amount of support and help that goes to the art—
    Mr. Allen: It is a pity that that money did not go to the CTCs.
    Mr. Luce: It would be very good news if Opposition Members would welcome the process and encourage those who wish to help the arts.
    Following is the list:

    Organisation

    Donor

    Amount

    Dale of announcement

    Purpose

    Victoria and Albert Museum

    Mr. T.T. Tsui

    £1·25 million

    20 June 1988

    To create new gallery of Chinese Art and Design

    BAFTA

    Shell (sponsorship)

    £3 million

    12July 1988

    Various projects

  CIVIL SERVICE

    Parliamentary Answers
    Mr. Dalyell: To ask the Minister for the Civil Service if, pursuant to his reply of 4 July, Official Report, column 730, he will make it his policy, when answering a parliamentary question to the effect that he has nothing to add to previous replies, to indicate the precise Hansard reference for the answer or answers which provide the information requested.
    The Minister of State, Privy Council Office (Mr. Richard Luce): I shall continue to abide by the conventions of the House.
    Mr. Dalyell: Instead of pretending that questions on Westland have been answered, when they certainly have not, would it not be better for our country, and helpful from the point of view of the Commissioner going to Europe, if Ministers finally admitted that at column 657 on 27 January 1986 the Prime Minister caused much of this trouble by telling an indispensable lie to the House of Commons?
    Mr. Speaker: Order. I ask the hon. Gentleman to withdraw that allegation about the Prime Minister.
    Mr. Dalyell: I believe that there is cynical corruption involved in this—
    Mr. Speaker: Order. I ask the hon. Gentleman to withdraw those words.
    Mr. Dalyell: The words were extremely carefully chosen—
    Mr. Speaker: Order. If the hon. Gentleman does not obey the Chair I shall be forced to name him, and I should be very reluctant to do that. I give him the opportunity to withdraw the allegation that the Prime Minister lied to the House.
    Mr. Dalyell: The truth of the matter is that Parliament has been insulted—
    Mr. Speaker: Order. If the hon. Gentleman is not prepared to withdraw those words, I shall be forced to name him. I give him one final chance.
    Mr. Dalyell: I do not wish to embarrass you, Mr.Speaker. I am not asking for a final chance. I would not have said those words unless I meant them—
    Mr. Speaker: Order. I name Mr. Tam Dalyell.
    The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. John Wakeham): I beg to move,
    That Mr. Tam Dalyell be suspended from the service ofthe House.
    Question put:—
    The House divided: Ayes 180, Noes 28.

    Division No. 440]

    [3.24 pm

    AYES

    Adley. Robert

    Hannam, John

    Alison, Rt Hon Michael

    Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn)

    Arbuthnot, James

    Harris, David

    Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

    Haselhurst, Alan

    Atkinson, David

    Hayward, Robert

    Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)

    Heathcoat-Amory, David

    Barnes, Mrs Rosie (Greenwich)

    Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael

    Beaumont-Dark, Anthony

    Hicks, Robert (Cornwall SE)

    Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)

    Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.

    Biggs-Davison, Sir John

    Hind, Kenneth

    Blackburn, Dr John G.

    Hordern, Sir Peter

    Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter

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

    Boscawen, Hon Robert

    Howarth, G. (Cannock & B'wd)

    Boswell, Tim

    Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)

    Bottomley, Mrs Virginia

    Hunt, David (Wirral W)

    Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)

    Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)

    Bowis, John

    Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas

    Braine, Rt Hon Sir Bernard

    Irvine, Michael

    Brandon-Bravo, Martin

    Jack, Michael

    Brazier, Julian

    Janman, Tim

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

    Jessel, Toby

    Bruce, Ian (Dorset South)

    Jones, Robert B (Herts W)

    Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)

    Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine

    Buck, Sir Antony

    Key, Robert

    Burns, Simon

    King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)

    Burt, Alistair

    Kinnock, Rt Hon Neil

    Butcher, John

    Knapman, Roger

    Butler, Chris

    Knowles, Michael

    Carrington, Matthew

    Knox, David

    Channon, Rt Hon Paul

    Latham, Michael

    Chapman, Sydney

    Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark

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

    Lightbown, David

    Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)

    Lloyd, Sir Ian (Havant)

    Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)

    Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)

    Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

    Lord, Michael

    Cope, Rt Hon John

    Luce, Rt Hon Richard

    Cormack, Patrick

    McCrindle, Robert

    Cran, James

    MacGregor, Rt Hon John

    Currie, Mrs Edwina

    MacKay, Andrew (E Berkshire)

    Curry, David

    McLoughlin, Patrick

    Day, Stephen

    Madel, David

    Devlin, Tim

    Malins, Humfrey

    Dicks, Terry

    Mans, Keith

    Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

    Maples, John

    Dover, Den

    Marlow, Tony

    Durant, Tony

    Marshall, John (Hendon S)

    Emery, Sir Peter

    Marshall, Michael (Arundel)

    Fallon, Michael

    Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

    Farr, Sir John

    Maude, Hon Francis

    Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)

    Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin

    Field, Frank (Birkenhead)

    Miller, Sir Hal

    Finsberg, Sir Geoffrey

    Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

    Fishburn, Dudley

    Moate, Roger

    Fookes, Miss Janet

    Monro, Sir Hector

    Forman, Nigel

    Montgomery, Sir Fergus

    Forth, Eric

    Moore, Rt Hon John

    Foster, Derek

    Morrison, Sir Charles

    Fowler, Rt Hon Norman

    Morrison, Rt Hon P (Chester)

    Gale, Roger

    Moss, Malcolm

    Garel-Jones, Tristan

    Mudd, David

    Gill, Christopher

    Neale, Gerrard

    Golding, Mrs Llin

    Neubert, Michael

    Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

    Newton, Rt Hon Tony

    Gow, Ian

    Nicholls, Patrick

    Grant, Sir Anthony (CambsSW)

    Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)

    Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn

    Onslow, Rt Hon Cranley

    Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

    Page, Richard

    Hanley, Jeremy

    Parkinson, Rt Hon Cecil

    19

    Patnick, Irvine

    Stern, Michael

    Portillo, Michael

    Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)

    Powell, William (Corby)

    Stewart, Andy (Sherwood)

    Price, Sir David

    Stokes, Sir John

    Rathbone, Tim

    Sumberg, David

    Redwood, John

    Tapsell, Sir Peter

    Ridley, Rt Hon Nicholas

    Taylor, John M (Solihull)

    Rossi, Sir Hugh

    Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

    Rost, Peter

    Thorne, Neil

    Ryder, Richard

    Thurnham, Peter

    Sackville, Hon Tom

    Townsend, Cyril D. (B'heath)

    Shaw, David (Dover)

    Twinn, Dr Ian

    Shelton, William (Streatham)

    Waddington, Rt Hon David

    Shephard, Mrs G. (Norfolk SW)

    Wakeham, Rt Hon John

    Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

    Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

    Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)

    Watts, John

    Sims, Roger

    Wheeler, John

    Skeet, Sir Trevor

    Widdecombe, Ann

    Soames, Hon Nicholas

    Wilshire, David

    Spearing, Nigel

    Wood, Timothy

    Speller, Tony

    Spicer, Sir Jim (Dorset W)

    Tellers for the Ayes:

    Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

    Mr. David Maclean and Mr. Kenneth Carlisle.

    Stanbrook, Ivor

    NOES

    Allen, Graham

    Jones, Barry (Alyn & Deeside)

    Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)

    McAllion, John

    Bradley, Keith

    Madden, Max

    Brown, Nicholas (Newcastle E)

    Patchett, Terry

    Buchan, Norman

    Pike, Peter L.

    Campbell, Ron (Blyth Valley)

    Redmond, Martin

    Campbell-Savours, D. N.

    Salmond, Alex

    Corbyn, Jeremy

    Skinner, Dennis

    Cousins, Jim

    Vaz, Keith

    Cox, Tom

    Wigley, Dafydd

    Ewing, Mrs Margaret (Moray)

    Williams, Alan W. (Carm'then)

    Flannery, Martin

    Wilson, Brian

    Galloway, George

    Heffer, Eric S.

    Tellers for the Noes:

    Hinchliffe, David

    Mr. Bob Cryer and Mr. Bill Michie.

    Janner, Greville

    Question accordingly agreed to.
    MR. Speaker: Order. I have to direct the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) to withdraw in compliance with the order which the House has just made
    Mr. Dalyell: On the point of order, Mr. Speaker [Interruption.]
    Mr. Speaker: Order. I ask the House to allow me to deal with the matter. I have said to the hon. Member that he must now withdraw from the House, otherwise I shall have to take the next step.
    Mr. Allen: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.
    Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Member for Linlithgow must withdraw from the House first.
    Mr. Dalyell: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.
    Mr. Speaker: Order. I have said to the hon. Gentleman that he must now immediately withdraw from the House. The hon. Gentleman has been suspended from the service of the House. I am not going to give the hon. Gentleman a further chance on this matter. I must say to him that if I have to ask the Serjeant at Arms to lay a finger upon him, he will be suspended for the rest of this Session. That is a very serious step for me to take.
    Mr. Dalyell rose—
    Mr. Speaker: Order. I must say to the hon. Gentleman that he must now leave at once, please.
    The hon. Member withdrew.
    Mr. Allen: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. At what point does the authority of the Chair come into play when Ministers, after one year or two years, continually refuse to answer questions directly? Is it not your role, Mr. Speaker—
    Mr. Speaker: Order. The whole House knows that that has absolutely nothing to do with me.
    Mr. Allen rose—
    Mr. Speaker: Order. What I asked the hon. Member to do was to withdraw an unparliamentary phrase, which I would ask any hon. Member on either side of the House to do if he used it. The hon. Member was named for refusing to obey the Chair.
    Mr. Allen rose—
    Mr. Speaker: Order. I am not taking any further points of order on this matter.

Civil Service Agencies
The following question stood upon the Paper:
Mr. Robert G. Hughes: To ask the Minister for the Civil Service what progress has been made in setting up the new Civil Service agencies.
3.37 pm
The Minister of State, Privy Council Office (Mr. Richard Luce): As I told my hon. Friend the Member for Wokingham (Mr. Redwood) earlier today, we have now identified 29 activities, covering some 170,000 civil servants, which are immediate agency candidates. One of these was, as my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport, told the House earlier today, the vehicle inspectorate, which will be established as an agency from 1 August. The project manager is examining with Departments the rest of their activities, and I hope to make a report to the House later this year.
Mr. Hughes: Does my right hon. Friend accept that his statement will be very welcome to those of us who believe that these measures will improve the delivery of service in many areas, particularly the areas that have been announced today? Will he confirm that it is important that those services should be free to act in a commercial sense and that he should get on with the process as quickly as possible? When does he hope to be able to announce further services that will be put out in that way?
Mr. Luce: I am most grateful to my hon. Friend. Of course, the whole purpose of the exercise in devolution of responsibility within the Civil Service for the executive functions is to improve the delivery of Government services, to improve management still further than the already high standards and to get the best value for money. That can best be achieved by this objective. My hon. Friend will see that the framework agreement for the vehicle inspectorate is extremely thorough and very long and highlights a number of areas where there is substantial devolution of authority. That is very important indeed.
On the latter part of my hon. Friend's question, I can assure him that we are intending to make as rapid progress as we can. I have now identified three other areas which we expect to become agencies soon—the Companies Registration Office, the DHSS resettlement units and the employment services.
Mr. John Garrett: Will the Minister confirm that his officials are saying that up to three quarters of the entire Civil Service will be subjected to the agency arrangements, including DHSS local offices? How is he responding to the misgivings of the Treasury, publicly expressed, about the different pay rates for different agencies, and the misgivings of many hon. Members that under agency arrangements we shall no longer be able to call civil servants to account, particularly for some sensitive areas of public policy, such as the social fund?
Mr. Luce: The hon. Gentleman poses a number of questions. First, the project manager did state in evidence to the Treasury and Civil Service Select Committee that he felt that within 10 years at least three quarters of the Civil Service could have agency status established. I see no reason to quarrel with that figure. On the hon. Gentleman's second question, the DHSS, at the request of
22
my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Services, is being examined as a possible candidate for agency status. Thirdly, the hon. Gentleman will know that, through my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer, we are already developing a more flexible pay policy on recruitment and retention grounds. That is already evolving, irrespective of the agencies. The vehicle inspectorate document, which is fully published, shows that there is considerable devolution of responsibility. On accountability, at the end of the day the Ministers concerned are accountable to the House and that principle must remain firmly established.
Mr. Terence Higgins: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the Treasury and Civil Service Select Committee has now taken a great deal of evidence on the subject and hopes to report soon? Clearly, I cannot anticipate what the report may say. On a personal basis, may I say that the selection of the vehicle inspectorate as an example seems to be an appropriate one.
Mr. Luce: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend. When he publishes the report by the Treasury and Civil Service Select Committee, I can assure him that I and my right hon. Friends will study the findings carefully.
Mr. Giles Radice: Is it not the case that if there is to be such a dramatic change by the end of 10 years, it will have profound implications for democratic and parliamentary accountability, particularly for the role of Ministers, Members of Parliament, Select Committees and the Public Accounts Committee?
Mr. Luce: I know that the hon. Gentleman is taking a close interest in the matter in his role as a member of the Select Committee. I must strongly reiterate that Ministers will remain ultimately accountable. The nature of the responsibility between the Secretary of State for broad policy matters and the chief executive for day-to-day management matters has to be spelt out clearly in the framework document. That is clear in the document available for the vehicle inspectorate. At the end of the day, Ministers are accountable but it is open to Select Committees to invite the chief executive and other officials to give evidence to them.
Mr. Michael Heseltine: I welcome my right hon. Friend's statement, but does he agree that the heart of enhanced responsibility in the management of such agencies is that the managers should be recruited from the public and private sectors, that they should be recruited on contract and not on life terms and that, as long as the Treasury has control over the pay and conditions of the employees of the agencies, the concept of responsibility at which my right hon. Friend is driving still has a long way to go?
Mr. Luce: I respect my right hon. Friend's view, since he has had considerable experience in the subject and did a great deal during his time in office to help improve the management and resources of the Civil Service. I can confirm that, on the recruitment of chief executives and other officials, it is open to Secretaries of State in charge of the particular agency to recruit from outside the Civil Service if they so wish. If they think that it is more efficient that way they are entitled to do so, provided that there is fair and open competition. I agree entirely with my right hon. Friend that there are definitely advantages in having

23
fixed contracts in certain circumstances. That is what has happened for the vehicle inspectorate, where there is a three-year contract.
As for the Treasury and my right hon. Friend the Chancellor, if my right hon. Friend looks at the framework agreement for the vehicle inspectorate, he will see the extent of devolution of responsibility that has already been provided for the management of personnel, for resources and for the giving of performance-related pay, which is extremely important. It must be in the interests of the Treasury as well as that of the Government to obtain better value for money. That is the point of the agency process. It is in all our interests that it should succeed.
Mr. Robert Sheldon: All hon. Members will agree that we want value for money in all respects in these matters. Will the right hon. Gentleman accept that accountability to Parliament is the crucial test? The Prime Minister said that the agencies will be accountable to Parliament. The right hon. Gentleman's comments seem to have gone a little astray from the Prime Minister's remarks. Will he give a further assurance that accountability to the Public Accounts Committee, to the National Audit Office and to the Comptroller and Auditor General will remain unchanged?
Mr. Luce: I can give that assurance to the right hon. Gentleman without any equivocation. There is no doubt about it.
Sir Peter Blaker: Will the agencies have power to relocate staff outside London and the south-east of England, in so far as they are not already relocated, if relocation is considered desirable to save costs, for example?
Mr. Luce: I know of my right hon. Friend's interest in the matter. He may have noticed that my right hon. Friend the Paymaster General recently made a statement about the relocation of the Civil Service. Four out of five civil servants are already outside London. In terms of recruitment and retention, if Departments find it more beneficial to move civil servants to other regions, they will look seriously at the matter, and it should be regarded as a high priority.
Mr. Harry Barnes: Have there been full, free and frank discussions with the relevant Civil Service trade unions about this agency in the vehicle inspectorate? The matter should be discussed with the three other agencies that were referred to, and the 25 agencies that will follow.
Mr. Luce: I can give the hon. Gentleman an assurance that, in any case, if there is to be a suggested change in the terms and conditions of the Civil Service, there will be full and proper consultations with the Civil Service. The hon. Gentleman might like to know that, last Friday, the project manager for the next steps, Mr. Kemp, saw the trade unions to consult them about the next stages.
Mr. Nicholas Soames: Does my right hon. Friend agree that, as in the rest of the Civil Service, many benefits would accrue to the agencies were there to be a great more fluency in the coming and going between the public and private sectors? As my right hon. Friend has
24
already given an assurance in respect of new agencies, will he seek broadly throughout the Civil Service to have many more civil servants having experience in the private sector and vice versa?
Mr. Luce: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. We are looking at ways in which we can strengthen the interchange between the private sector and the Civil Service, not just by secondments but by other means. The establishment of these agencies will do quite a lot to strengthen that process. As I said earlier, we certainly will not exclude the possibility of chief executives being part of that process.
Mr. Max Madden: Will the Minister confirm that he does not propose full privatisation but an agency because of opposition to privatisation from the road haulage industry? Will he confirm that all trade unions representing the appropriate staff have been fully consulted? Are we to take it that "a more flexible pay policy" is a euphemism for the ending of nationally agreed pay rates?
Mr. Luce: The Governmenfs policy on privatisation has not changed as a result of the "next steps" policy. If a Minister decides that a particular function of his Department would be better carried out by means of privatisation, that must be his first priority. It is only when that is decided as not being the best process and the best next stage that an agency may be decided upon as the best move to strengthen the management of services. I simply reiterate that we have undertaken to consult trade unions whenever there are any proposed changes in terms and conditions. The project manager saw trade union leaders last Friday to talk about the next stages.
Mr. Peter Thurnham: Does my right hon. Friend agree that service to the public should be much improved if the Companies Registration Office were put on an agency basis? Is he aware of the long delays at present? On average they are 10 weeks, and, in the case of some Barlow Clowes documents, over 200 days.
Mr. Luce: It will be for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry in due course to announce the timing, if he eventually decides to establish an agency, and how he envisages an improvement in services. My hon. Friend is right to stress the importance of the improved delivery of services. That is one of the major objectives of this exercise. It is interesting that, earlier today, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport highlighted some examples of how the services of the vehicle inspectorate can be improved.
Dr. John Marek: Will the Minister confirm that standards of testing will be maintained in the long term, following the setting up of the agency? Secondly, will he confirm that the road haulage industry opposed privatisation due to escalating costs and therefore that the agency is not a first step towards privatisation? What guarantees can the Minister give staff wishing to transfer to or from the agency in the future? Finally, when the Minster refers to flexible pay, many of us assume that he means lower pay for people in the north, Scotland and Wales. Can he deny that?
Mr. Luce: The first two questions are principally for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport, but my right hon. Friend is happy for me to stress that, with

25
regard to the vehicle inspectorate, the safety interest will remain paramount. It is important to confirm that. I also confirm that my right hon. Friend has no plans whatever to take the matter a stage further to privatisation. His first and immediate priority is the establishment of an agency.

Hospital Patients (Radiation Overdose)
3.51 pm
Mr. John Hannam(by private notice): To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services if he will make a statement on the radiation overdose given to patients receiving radiotherapy at the Royal Devon and Exeter hospital, Exeter.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Security (Mrs. Edwina Currie): The telecobalt machine at the Royal Devon and Exeter hospital was installed some years ago and is of a type commonly in use in the National Health Service to treat cancer patients. On 12 February 1988, a new cobalt source was installed as part of a routine service. Due to an error of calibration, the machine was then set to give a 25 per cent. higher dose of radiation. On 12 July 1988, staff dealing with patients drew attention to side effects in a small number of patients and the machine was checked. The error was immediately found and rectified. The machine is not itself faulty and continues in use.
Immediate steps were taken to identify the 153 patients who had been treated on the machine during this period. An independent assessor, Professor Charles Joslin of Leeds university, has been asked to give an opinion on each case. All the patients concerned are being called in this week and treated or counselled as necessary.
Exeter health authority has set up an inquiry drawing on the expertise of Professor Joslin, and an independent physicist called in at the authority's regional scientific officer, and the Health and Safety Executive. Their reports are expected to go to the health authority as soon as possible. I am satisfied that appropriate action has been taken and that patients should continue to have confidence in radiotherapy as a major lifesaving treatment both in Exeter and elsewhere.
Mr. Hannam: I and all hon. Members express sympathy to those facing terrible uncertainty as a result of this unfortunate error. Is my hon. Friend aware that there is great concern about the lack of a fail-safe check-up system for the recalibration of radiotherapy equipment? Should not the Health and Safety Executive give a clear specification of the requirements for such checks and the responsibility for such a system be placed on the health authority?
Finally, can my hon. Friend say to what extent the excess doses of radiation given to patients fell within the range of normal treatment practice elsewhere by other clinicians?
Mrs. Currie: On the last question, I am sure that my hon. Friend would not wish me to give a clinical view which might reflect on particular patients, but I am assured that much of what he has said is correct.
With regard to a fail-safe device, guidelines for inspections are set out in two sets of statutory regulations, both of which are accompanied by detailed guidance which builds on earlier similar guidance. I refer my hon. Friend to paragraph 7.22 of the guidance, which does not appear to have been followed in its entirety. We expect the Exeter inquiry to address this issue and I have asked the Health and Safety Executive to advise me further.
Mr. Matthew Taylor: Will the Under-Secretary of State confirm that all patients have been or will be contacted successfully and that there is no problem in identifying all concerned in this instance? Will she also confirm that all other machines which might be subject to similar errors will be checked and all steps taken to ensure that no such overdoses are taking place elsewhere and that none will occur in the future?
Mrs. Currie: Yes, we are not in any doubt about the nature of the error, the date on which it occurred or its duration. There is no doubt which patients have been affected, and they either have been or are being contacted. As to the second part of the hon. Gentleman's question, the output of the machines should be checked monthly, which is normal practice in National Health Service hospitals. I have asked the Health and Safety Executive to advise me further on the matter.
Sir Peter Emery: Will my hon. Friend accept that, while there is much concern about the matter, everybody in the locality has much praise for the work that the Royal Devon and Exeter hospital does? When 153 patients are involved, some of whom are young children, there is much concern. How is the division between clinical control and executive management supervision affected? It seems that a clinical decision was taken but that it was very difficult for the executive management to spot the problem.
Will my hon. Friend confirm that there will be an independent chairman of the inquiry? It has been suggested that the deputy chairman of Exeter health authority might be appointed. That would be a mistake, because somebody from outside Devon should be appointed to ensure that nothing is being hidden. Why has there been a delay of over 10 days from 12 July to date? Patients should have been notified; many of them learned about the problem only because of television. That must be a terrifying factor, that should never be allowed to happen again.
Mrs. Currie: Yes, I agree with much of what my hon. Friend says. I concur with my hon. Friend that radiotherapy machines save lives. There is no doubt that, had patients not been treated on them, the condition from which they were suffering could have been terminal. I understand that the equipment is the responsibility of the physicists, and that advice from an outside adviser who is a physicist has been called for by the health authority. As to the question of an independent chairman, the health authority has called immediately for an inquiry, and it is appropriate that the inquiry should be conducted within that framework. I have said that I expect the inquiry, through the regional health authority, to report to me with its recommendations.
As to the delay in notifying patients, I understand that the intention was first to obtain a judgment on cases, if at all possible, so that the patients could be reassured or offered further treatment if necessary. In my view—I think that my hon. Friend will share this view—notifying patients where there is cause for concern should be a top priority. I have asked my officials to advise me urgently on a possible standard procedure that we could offer to all health authorities, bearing in mind that patients should have as much information as possible to set their anxieties at rest. Patients should not hear about the problem from the press first.
Mr. Robin Maxwell-Hyslop: Can my hon. Friend tell me whether Professor Joslin's report will be published and when she is expecting that it will be available to hon. Members as well as to the public at large and, indeed, to the general practitioners who referred the patients to the Royal Devon and Exeter hospital in the first place, because they will obviously have the more intimate and day-to-day contact with the patients?
Mrs. Currie: I am advised that Professor Joslin is offering detailed clinical guidance, case by case, on all 153 patients treated by the machine. It would almost certainly not be appropriate for that information, which is confidential, to be published. He will, however, be making a report, as requested, to the health authority, and I expect it then to take a view about whether a summary of it may be made available. We certainly intend to learn from all the lessons.
Several Hon. Members rose—
Mr. Speaker: Order. I remind those Opposition Members who were rising that this matter specifically refers to the Royal Devon and Exeter hospital. I shall call the hon. and learned Member for Leicester, West (Mr. Janner), but it is not about Leicester.
Mr. Greville Janner: No, Mr. Speaker, but it could be.
Has the Minister taken legal advice as to whether or not a prosecution would be permitted of the Royal Devon and Exeter hospital, or any other where such a hazard has been caused not only to people at work but to those who are affected by its undertaking? If such a move were excluded by Crown immunity, it is not time that the rule was changed?
Mrs. Currie: It is far too early to answer questions such as that, as the hon. Gentleman, who is a lawyer, knows perfectly well. Responsibility for the safety of this type of equipment both for patients and for staff lies with the Health and Safety Executive in the first instance. I have asked it to check that the guidance which says that the equipment should be checked monthly is being followed and to advise me whether any further action is necessary.
Miss Emma Nicholson: On Saturday, I had an opportunity to see some of my constituents, who are patients affected by the higher than anticipated doses of radiation. They have asked me to convey to the Minister their genuine confidence in the work of the consultant and the hospital technicians, and their extreme confidence that ameliorative action will be taken. Although this incident has added to their anxiety about their disease treatment, they are comfortable with the action that is now being taken.
Mrs. Currie: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. That is certainly the message that I have had, too. Many of the patients being cared for in this way were receiving palliative treatment—in other words, low dosages anyway—which was designed to make them more comfortable. I understand that a number of the other patients were taking part in a trial of low dosage treatment and, therefore, my anxieties are somewhat relieved.
Mr. Ron Leighton: Will the Minister deal with the advisability of having a chairman for the inquiry from outside that health authority?
Mrs. Currie: Our procedure, which we have followed on previous occasions when there has been any cause for concern, is to ask the health authority to carry out an inquiry. In this case, the health authority has already decided to do so and we will wait to see what it proposes to do and whether any action is necessary.
Mr. Tony Speller: I must own that the tenor of the impressions given by my hon. Friends suggests that a bucket of whitewash is adjacent already. I wish to speak for one constituent who had a course of treatment during May. At that time she was told, "No, you never get burned by this treatment." She was burned to the extent of needing in-patient treatment in the South Molton hospital. At that stage, someone should have said, "If people are not normally burned, why has this woman been burned?"
I must state that, at 2.30 this afternoon, this lady had not had any notification since the health authority discovered the problem a fortnight ago. I am glad that the press got hold of this leak some time after the authority discovered the problem. What happened was that this lady heard about the too high dosages of radiation on the radio. She then telephoned the hotline number. She was told, "If you have not heard, you are not concerned." She therefore relaxed. The next day, on the television, she saw a picture of the apparatus, which she recognised, so she telephoned again. She was told, "Yes, you are concerned." Just imagine the feeling of this poor person.
Mr. Speaker: Briefly, please.
Mr. Speller: This is an important matter, at least to us locally. Quite frankly, the surgeon or the chap who appeared on the television gave what can only be described as a flip collection of answers, including such answers as, "Some people have asked for higher dosages because they get better quicker." There is a whiff of scandal here, which I hope we shall not try to cover up.
Mrs. Currie: I hear what my hon. Friend has said, and he knows me well enough to be aware that there is never any whitewash around when I am in charge of something. As I said a moment ago, it is my firm view that patients should be contacted with as much information as possible, and as soon as possible. I understand why that was not
30
done in the case of the Exeter health authority—it has been trying hard to get a proper clinical view for each patient before they are contacted. That is a reasonable thing to try to do, but in the circumstances I hope it will ensure, and indeed that we can develop procedures in future to ensure, that patients are well informed in advance.
I cannot comment further on the clinical advice that my hon. Friend's constituent was given, except to say that it is quite normal to have mild side effects from treatment of this sort. If it is to cure the cancer, it sometimes causes other damage as well.
Ms. Harriet Harman: Does the hon. Lady recognise that people are worried not just because a mistake of this nature was made, but that it remained undetected for so long? Will she ensure that all hospitals follow the good practice that is followed in some—and which is not in the regulations—which is that machines are checked on the basis of output rather than simply by calculating what the machine should be sending out? That check should be made every month and should be made by two physicists.
As the district health authority has admitted liability, will the hon. Lady ensure that compensation for suffering and anxiety is speedily assessed and paid? Will she tell the House how long ago the machine in question was installed?
Mrs. Currie: In connection with the last question, I cannot answer in detail, but I know that the machine has been in use for some time. lt has been in use in Exeter for a number of years. The answer to the first question is yes.
The answer to the second question is yes, and I shall simply read into the record paragraph 7.22 of the guidance which goes out with the statutory regulations. It says:
"A qualified and experienced radiation physicist should be made responsible for ensuring that all gamma and beta-ray apparatus is checked for correct operation and applicability of the output data in use, at least once every month".
That has been the guidance for a very long time and we would expect the health authority to know about it.
In answer to the third question about compensation, I think our first job is to look after patients' health and we can concern ourselves with other issues, if necessary, later.

European Commission (Appointments)
4.5 pm
Mr. Nigel Spearing: I beg to ask leave to move the Adjournment of the House, under Standing Order No. 20, for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration, namely,
"the appointments by Her Majesty's Government to the Commission of the European Economic Community."
The matter is specific, as these appointments are the responsibility of a Minister of the Crown and specified under a treaty to which both Government and Parliament are currently subject. They therefore arise not from prerogative powers, but from obligations specifically entered into by the House by Act of Parliament.
The appointments are of great public importance as the holders of those offices are thought to have significant powers and influence over the nature and range of legislation that can be applied indirectly to both people and Government of the United Kingdom—even, on occasion, against their express desires. It thus follows that the procedures relating to such appointments, the role of the Commissioners, the proven record of public service and the qualities of the person so nominated, transcend the normal practices relating to domestic appointments. Until recently, that principle appears to have been recognised by successive Governments, but it is now in doubt.
In addition, in respect of one of the nominees, there have been press and other reports relating to the fourth report of the Defence Select Committee, House of Commons paper for the 1985–86 Session, which in paragraph 177 referred to conduct which was "especially reprehensible", and in paragraph 179 to
"an outrageous way in which to treat a Law Officer of the Crown".
The matter is urgent because, while no formal decision on the Adjournment of the House had yet been made, the time available for debate on the matter is likely to be limited to two or three days, within which both the probability and form of debate by other means are not assured when weighed against the importance of the topic.
As the guardian of the role of the House of Commons, Mr. Speaker, you are thus instructed to be mindful of the responsibilities of Members to debate matters of urgent public importance, especially those which both assert and put into practice the accountability of Ministers of the Crown, and thus their accountability to those who sent us here.
Mr. Speaker: The hon. Gentleman asks leave to move the Adjournment of the House, under Standing Order No. 20, for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter that he believes should have urgent consideration, namely,
"the appointments by Her Majesty's Government to the Commission of the European Economic Community."
As the hon. Gentleman knows, I have to decide, when making my judgment on these matters, whether an application meets the criteria laid down under Standing Order No. 20.
I listened with care to what the hon. Gentleman said, but I regret that I do not consider that the matter he has raised is appropriate for discussion under Standing Order No. 20. I cannot, therefore, submit his application to the House.
Several Hon. Members rose—
Mr. Frank Dobson: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, I would certainly not wish to dispute your view that the matter that my hon. Friend the Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing) raised merits taking precedence over other business, but have you had any representations from the Prime Minister about a desire, or even a lack of a desire, on her part to make a statement about the rather remarkable circumstances in which a right hon. and learned Member of the House, who resigned in disgrace from the Cabinet, is now being put forward as one of this country's nominees to serve on the European Commission? As you know from events earlier today, Mr. Speaker, there are deep and bitter feelings about the whole question of the Westland scandal and the role of Ministers in it—[Interruption.]
Mr. Speaker: Order. I have to say to the shadow Leader of the House that the application to which I have just listened was not concerned with that matter. It was concerned with the appointments—both appointments—to the European Commission.
Mr. Dobson: I was going to go on to say, Mr. Speaker, that there is most legitimate concern in this House about what happened over the Westland affair and whether significant people involved in that affair are, in effect, getting pay-offs for keeping quiet about those events. My right hon. and hon. Friends are especially concerned about the difference between the treatment of the person whom it is proposed should replace Lord Cockfield and that of Stanley Clinton Davis, a former Member of the House, a man of the highest integrity who served this country well in his post as a commissioner, and who appears to have been dispensed with entirely on the basis of personal spite on the part of the Prime Minister. In those circumstances, it is only right and proper that she who makes the appointments should come to this House to explain what she is up to—
Several Hon. Members rose—
Mr. Speaker: Order. If hon. Members look at the Order Paper, they will see that we have a very heavy day and perhaps even a heavy night ahead of us—[Interruption.] Allow me to answer this question. I can deal only with matters which are my responsibility. I have not received any notification from the Prime Minister that she wishes to make any statement. [Interruption.] Order. However, the House knows that she will be present here tomorrow and the House knows equally that there are other opportunities this week when this matter could be raised if hon. Members think that it is important.
Mr. Tony Marlow: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. May I say briefly how totally devastated and baffled we are on this side of the House that the hon. Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing) should wish to continue the reign of Lord Cockfield in Brussels? Having said that, Mr. Speaker, may I also say how baffled we are that we have just received a lecture on parliamentary morality from the Shadow Leader of the House some 10 or 15 minutes after a vote in this House to sustain your authority for which the hon. Gentleman was not present? That must be almost without precedent. The hon. Gentleman's predecessor, the right hon. Member for Blaenau Gwent (Mr. Foot), is here and he can tell us

33
whether it is without precedent. It is my belief that usually when there is a vote in this House to sustain your authority, not only the Leader of the Opposition and the Opposition Chief Whip, but the Shadow Leader of the House, also comes to your support. We on this side feel that this is totally reprehensible and quite disgraceful.
Mr. Speaker: I hope that the whole House will always support the Chair in these difficult matters. [Interruption.] Order. I cannot see any profit in dealing further with this matter because they are not questions that I can answer—
Several Hon. Members: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker: Order. If it is on a different issue, I will try. Mr. Winnick.
Mr. David Winnick: As you will know, Mr. Speaker, there is concern that power and sovereignty are being taken from this House to the European Commission, and I should have thought that that matter would concern you. As power and sovereignty are being transferred more and more from this House to Brussels, are we not now in the ironic position where the Government's appointments of commissioners are not even being debated in prime parliamentary time?
You said a moment ago, Mr. Speaker, that this issue could be raised with the Prime Minister tomorrow, but what about the possibility of having a debate and the necessity of being able to put forward points of view? It is not just a question of the very controversial appointment of the right hon. and learned Member for Richmond, Yorks (Mr. Brittan)—that may well be a matter for debate—or of what is, in my view, the justified dismissal of Lord Cockfield, the Euro-fanatic; it is also about the right of this House to be able to debate who should be our commissioners in Brussels.
Mr. Speaker: Obviously the hon. Gentleman was not here last Thursday when the Leader of the House announced the business for this week—[Interruption.] Well, it is not for me to give hints to hon. Members, but there is an opportunity on the summer Adjournment motion to debate this very matter.
Mr. Alastair Goodlad: Further to the point of order, Mr. Speaker. Is it not the case that any suggestion from Opposition Members that my right hon. and learned Friend is anything other than a man of the highest integrity and ability is not only out of order but untrue?
Several Hon. Members rose—
Mr. Speaker: Order. The whole House will agree that the right hon. and learned Member for Richmond, Yorks (Mr. Brittan) is a man of the highest integrity and that there has never been any suggestion to the contrary.
Mr. Bob Cryer: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. You announced that in the business of the House there will be opportunities to raise this issue this week, such as in the Consolidated Fund debate and in the summer Adjournment debate, but I would point out that those opportunities will not provide decisions. Is it not one important aspect of this—I seek your guidance, Mr. Speaker—the fact that a decision has been announced by the Prime Minister? We should like to know in what way this House can reverse that decision if it is necessary to do
34
so, bearing in mind that this is the last week before we reassemble on 18 October. Presumably, if this House passed a resolution reversing that decision and appointing other persons, that decision of this House would be superior to the patronage doled out by an ever-grateful Prime Minister to the right hon. and learned Member for Richmond, Yorks (Mr. Brittan).
Mr. Speaker: As I understand it, the appointments do not take effect until January and in any case, if the hon. Gentleman really wishes to push this matter, he could make the case that we need not adjourn.
Mr. Anthony Beaumont-Dark: In the 40 years up to 1984, 12 Members of this honourable House were suspended on Mr. Speaker's instructions; in the past five years 14 Members—now 15 Members—have been suspended. I believe that the Select Committee on Procedure is now looking into the discipline of the House. Do you not agree, Mr. Speaker, that we have now come to a stage when, often at the end of a parliamentary Session, because suspension means little, any hon. Member who is suspended today, tomorrow, on Wednesday or on Thursday is not really suspended at all, and the abuses of privileges of this House will go on and on? As we are getting to a stage where every day is more like changing guard at Buckingham Palace, wondering who is going to go next, should not we, as a House, decide that people who wish to exercise their privilege to be suspended, should be so for a Session at least, possibly for a Parliament, since otherwise this House gets into great disrepute?
Mr. Jonathan Aitken rose—
Mr. Speaker: Is it on the same matter?
Mr. Aitken: Yes, Mr. Speaker. On the point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak (Mr. Beaumont-Dark), may I appeal to you not to suspend the hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson), because he has made a most important announcement of a new leadership race in the Opposition—first because of the Leader of the Opposition having been asleep during the endless arguments about the sovereignty of this Parliament and, secondly, because he completely missed his chance in the Westland debate? We must not be allowed to exhume all those issues on the bogus issue that there is something wrong with my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Richmond, Yorks (Mr. Brittan).
Mr. Speaker: Let me deal with the question that was put to me about discipline in this House. I hope that it was a slip of the tongue for the hon. Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak (Mr. Beaumont-Dark) to say that it is a "privilege" to be named in this place. It is a serious step. I hope that the whole House will always uphold the authority of the Chair. If that does not happen, anarchy becomes the order of the day, and that is not the way in which we can conduct our affairs.
Mr. Dobson: Further to the point of order, Mr. Speaker. Could you confirm that it is not a matter for you as Mr. Speaker if someone lies to this House, but that it is a matter for you if someone else says that they have lied?
Mr. Speaker: I confirm to the House that we do not use unparliamentary phrases, words or allegations about each

35
other. The whole House knows the reason why the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) was suspended today.

European Commission (Appointments)

  STATUTORY INSTRUMENTS, &c.
  Mr. Speaker: With the leave of the House, I propose to put together the 14 motions relating to statutory instruments.
  Motion made, and Question put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 101(5) (Standing Committees on Statutory Instruments, &c).

  STATUTORY INSTRUMENTS, &c.
    Value Added Tax
    That the Value Added Tax (Special Provisions) (Amendent) Order 1988 (S.I., 1988, No. 1124), dated 28th June 1988, a copy of which was laid before this House on 29th June 1988, be approved.
    URBAN DEVELOPMENT
    That the Tyne and Wear Development Corporation (Vesting of Land) (Various Local Authorities) Order 1988, dated 15th June 1988, a copy of which was laid before this House on 22nd June 1988, be approved.
    URBAN DEVELOPMENT
    That the Tyne and Wear Corporation (Vesting of Land) (Borough of Sunderland) Order 1988, dated 15th June 1988, a copy of which was laid before this House on 22nd June 1988, be approved.
    URBAN DEVELOPMENT
    That the Tyne and Wear Development Corporation (Vesting of Land) (British Shipbuilders and British Steel Corporation) Order 1988, dated 23rd June 1988, a copy of which was laid before this House on 29th June 1988, be approved.
    URBAN DEVELOPMENT
    That the Black Country Development Corporation (Vesting of Land) (British Steel Corporation) Order 1988, dated 23rd June 1988, a copy of which was laid before this House on 29th June 1988, be approved.
    URBAN DEVELOPMENT
    That the Tyne and Wear Development Corporation (Vesting of Land) (Port of Tyne Authority) Order 1988, dated 30th 1988, a copy of which was laid before this House on lst July 1988, be approved.
    URBAN DEVELOPMENT
    That the Tyne and Wear Development Corporation (Vesting of Land) (British Coal Corporation) Order 1988, dated 28th June 1988, a copy of which was laid before this House on lst July 1988, be approved.
    URBAN DEVELOPMENT
    That the Black Country Development Corporation (Vesting of Land) (Borough of Walsall) Order 1988, dated 27th June 1988, a copy of which was laid before this House on lst July 1988, be approved.
    URBAN DEVELOPMENT
    That the Black Country Development Corporation (Vesting of Land) (Borough of Sandwell) Order 1988, dated 27th June 1988, a copy of which was laid before this House on lst July 1988, be approved.
    URBAN DEVELOPMENT
    That the Black Country Development Corporation (Vesting of Land) (British Railways Board) Order 1988, dated 30th June 1988, a copy of which was laid before this House on lst July 1988, be approved.
    URBAN DEVELOPMENT
    That the Tyne and Wear Development Corporation (Vesting of Land) (Tyne and Wear Passenger Transport Executive) Order 1988, dated 27th June 1988, a copy of which was laid before this House on lst July 1988, be approved.
    URBAN DEVELOPMENT
    That the Black Country Development Corporation (Vesting of Land) (General) Order 1988, dated 27th June 1988, a copy of which was laid before this House on lst July 1988, be approved.
    URBAN DEVELOPMENT
    That the Black Country Development Corporation (Vesting of Land) (Central Electricity Generating Board) Order 1988, dated lst July 1988, a copy of which was laid before this House on 4th July 1988, be approved.

    URBAN DEVELOPMENT
    That the Tyne and Wear Development Corporation (Vesting of Land) (City of Newcastle upon Tyne) Order 1988, dated 15th June 1988, a copy of which was laid before this House on 22nd June 1988, be approved.—[Mr. Lennox-Boyd.]
    Question agreed to.

  COPYRIGHT, DESIGNS AND PATENTS BILL [MONEY] (No. 2)
  Queens Recommendation having been signified—
  Resolved,
  That, for the purposes of any Act resulting from the Copyright, Designs and Patents Bill [Lords], it is expedient to authorise the payment out of money provided by Parliament of any increase attributable to the Act in the sums so payable by government departments in respect of Crown use of patents and designs.—[Mr. Lennox-Boyd.]

Orders of the Day

  Copyright, Designs and Patents Bill [Lords]
  As amended (in the Standing Committee), considered.
  Ordered,
  That the Bill be considered in the following order: Clause 205, Clause 27, new Clauses, Clauses 1 to 26, Clauses 28 to 204, Clauses 206 to 294, new Schedules, Schedules.—[Mr. Butcher.]
  4.22 pm
  Mr. Michael Foot: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. In connection with the selection of amendments and clauses for debate, can you tell the House whether there has been an alteration to what was put on the board earlier about the clauses to be selected? There is a widespread belief that there should be a fresh debate on the general subject of the rights of journalists and writers. I hope that the new clause put down by my hon. Friends will be selected for debate. If that is the case, I hope that you will tell the House.
  Mr. Speaker: I do not know which new clause the right hon. Gentleman is speaking about, but I think I am right in saying that the new clause put down by his hon. Friends has been selected for debate.
  Mr. Tony Blair: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. I am pleased to say that it has been selected for debate and will be debated

  Copyright, Designs and Patents Bill [Lords]
    Clause 205

      Design right
      Mr. Blair: I beg to move, amendment No. 224, in page 93, leave out lines 12 to 19.
      Mr. Speaker: With this it will be convenient to consider the following amendments: No. 274, in page 93, leave out lines 17 to 19.
      No. 225, in clause 228, page 101, line 17, leave out
      'in the last five years of the design right term'.
      No. 226, in page 101, line 19, at end insert—

      '(a) In respect of an article which is manufactured as a replacement part.

      (b) In any other case in the last five years of the design right term.'.

      No. 328, in page 101, line 19, at end insert—
      '(1A) Where a design right subsists in:—

      (i) features of shape or configuration which enable an article to be connected to, or placed in, around or against, another article so that either article may perform its function.

      (ii) features of shape or configuration dependent upon the appearance of that of which the article is intended to form part,

      any person is entitled as of right to a licence to do during the design right term any act which would otherwise infringe the design right.'.right.'.
      No. 227, in page 101, line 33, at end add—
      '(5) In this section an article is manufactured as a replacement part if it is primarily made for use as a replacement for a thing which forms part of, or functions in connection with, another article.'.
      Mr. Blair: I think it is fair to say that at times the Bill evoked an interest inside the House that was almost in inverse proportion to the interest outside the House. We have been
      38
      subjected to the most intense lobbying and hardly a sector of British industry that will be affected by the Bill has not clearly made known its views to us.
      The difficult balance that we have to strike in the Bill is between ensuring that industry has a proper incentive to invest and recognising that the consumer must be protected against the lack of competition that will inevitably come from copyright protection. If we protect industry too much the consumer will suffer through the abuse of monopoly, and if we give too little protection to industry it will lose the incentive to invest. Our task is not to choose between the interests of industry and the consumer but adequately to balance those interests. A competitive industry will require a powerful consumer and the wise consumer knows that the value of industry must be built on investment.
      The clause that we are debating is perhaps the most contentious for industry in the entire Bill. It is about the new concept introduced by the Government of unregistered design right. Although protection is already given to aesthetic designs, there has been considerable debate about the protection that should be given to functional designs—the designs of everyday articles used in industry and in the home. We agree with the Government that reform is necessary because the law has been left in an entire mess. Functional designs enjoy protection equivalent to artistic works under copyright—life plus 50 years—whereas aesthetic designs enjoy a much shorter period of protection. In addition to that inherently unlikely and wrong position, an important court case in 1986, British Leyland and Armstrong, dealt with the whole question of functional design and car spare parts. In effect, the court said that the law needed to be reformed because it was uncertain.
      The important matter to stress when talking about spare parts is that we are not talking merely about spare parts in the car industry. One of the things made clear to us in Committee and in the representations addressed to us is that if the debate proceeds simply on the basis of car spare parts we shall be in grave danger of legislating for the particular and forgetting entirely about the general. To illustrate that point more graphically I shall read from a letter sent to me by the Society of British Aerospace companies. It says:
      "Unless modified, the Bill will act as an impediment to the progressive development of UK industry, particularly the aerospace industry, in its need for continued and vigorous innovation to meet world-wide competition on a fair and realistic basis."
      The electrical appliance industry is also significantly affected by unregistered design right. In the briefing prepared by the Association of Manufacturers of Domestic Electrical Appliances, the association says:
      "Although we believe that many parts of the Bill are an improvement on existing laws, we would take this opportunity to focus attention on one specific area of the Bill which we feel would be particularly detrimental to the interests of our member companies. Our concern relates to the manufacture and provision of spare parts."
      Representations have also been addressed to us by the Variety Group which operates in industrial constructions and farm machinery. It makes the same points. A brief was also prepared by, I think, the Design Council. There have been so many briefs on this issue that it is difficult to know exactly where letters or briefings come from. The Design Council says:

      39
      "The zero protection proposed for a great deal of human ingenuity seems at odds with the 25 years protection proposed for the decorative panel"—
      Those are designs with aesthetic qualities. The brief says:
      "A cuddly toy will get 25 years' protection but a new educational construction kit will be open for all to copy from day one."
      Of course the car spare parts industry is important and will be greatly affected. However, it is not the only industry that will be affected. In addition to the problem of deciding how functional designs should be protected in relation to spare parts there is also a problem about the definition of spare parts. That is because the Government have not defined spare parts in the Bill. They have gone for what is now called the "must fit"/"must match" exemption. They are saying that when a part must fit or must match another part it loses its copyright protection. In Committee we saw the anomalies to which that could lead. In a Hoover two end parts must fit and must match the main body of the machine. In the middle there is a joining part that picks up fluff.
      Mr. Ted Rowlands: That is called the agitator.
      Mr. Blair: I thought that that was a political term, but apparently it is used in relation to Hoover spare parts. The Bill has been a continuing education for us all.
      The agitator part does not get the benefit of the "must fit"/"must match" exception and is protected. However, the two end bits that join it to the machine fall within the "must fit"/"must match" exception and will not be protected. That is an inherently foolish way in which to leave the law. The solution proposed by the Government, at which I shall shortly look in detail, does not merely arouse the anxiety of many companies across the spectrum of industry. Even the definition of spare parts has been subjected to criticism.
      At the beginning of my speech I spoke about a balance and such a balance applies strongly to this part of the Bill. We must pay attention to the need to reward investment while not allowing the abuse of monopoly because of anti-protection practices. Under the Government scheme, functional designs are to be given 10 years' protection. During the last five years of that 10-year term, spare parts manufacturers or copiers can manufacture that functional design under a licence of right from the original manufacturer. That scheme of 10-year protection for unregistered design right with licences of right in the last five years sits alongside the "must fit"/"must match" exception. That means that spare parts that must fit or must match lose protection altogether. The three components of the scheme are the 10-year period, the five years with the licence of right and no protection at all for spare parts that fall within the "must fit"/"must match" exception.
      4.30 pm
      The difficulty with the Government's proposal is that it does not address the problem of the requirement to balance the need to reward investment and the need to protect the consumer. The Government's scheme decides what spare parts will be given protection simply by reference to an accident of design; if the piece must fit and must match another, it loses protection, irrespective of the investment made and the development costs. If it does not
      40
      fall foul of the "must fit"/"must match" exception, it attains full unregistered design right protection as any other functional design would, even though few research or development costs may have been involved.
      The Government say that they have thought about the proposal carefully. They say that they have been through all the various arguments and reached a considered view. It is worth reminding Ministers, however, that one thing of which the Government cannot be accused in this matter is consistency. They have constantly changed their mind, and I do not entirely criticise them for that because, as I said, it is a difficult issue. None the less, the Government have swerved this way and that throughout a debate that has lasted for a period of years.
      When the 1986 White Paper was published, the Government's position was as clear as it could possibly be. In the White Paper the Government clearly said that, having considered all the arguments, they believed that spare parts should be given functional design protection. That was the position that they adopted in 1986, and it was only changed the following year. The Government say that they have considered the matter over a long period, and I accept that, but they have also constantly changed their mind over a long period. At the end of the Committee stage the question arose whether they should not change their mind again and realise the strength of the arguments put to them.
      I have described the Government's proposal, and I shall now deal with our alternative proposal. There are two major problems about what the Government have done. First, they have not defined spare parts but have simply introduced the concept of "must fit"/"must match". Any workable scheme to deal with functional design as it relates to spare parts must define spare parts. That is why we have provided a definition of spare parts as replacement parts for another article in amendment No. 227. To take my earlier example of the Hoover machine, the agitator would be included in the definition of spare parts along with the two end parts. That seems sensible, as we should thus avoid the absurd anomaly that one part of what is essentially the same spare part has design right protection and another does not.
      I freely confess that the second part of our proposal is a compromise, but it is a compromise that has some merit, and it is certainly superior to the Government's proposal. At the moment, spare parts lose all protection if they fall within the "must fit"/"must match" definition. That is clearly wrong, for all the reasons that I have given. On the other hand, it is correct that we need to guard against the abuse of the monopoly position that copyright protection confers—a monopoly position that has been abused.
      We propose, therefore, that spare parts should be given full design right protection, but that they should none the less be able to be copied under licence from the original manufacturer. If the terms of that licence cannot be agreed between the parties, there should be a right of appeal to the Comptroller-General of Patents, who will then decide what the terms of the licence should be.
      That would allow copiers to carry on copying original parts, but it would ensure that they could do so only under licence from the original manufacturer. That would mean that the original manufacturer would be able to secure some reward, within the terms of the licence, for his investment—his research and development costs. I accept that that means that copying could continue, but it would

      41
      be infinitely preferable for it to continue only under licence, whereas under the Bill as drafted it could continue without any restriction.
      When we pressed this point, the Government said that those arrangements would be too complicated and that it would lead to too much bureaucracy if the Comptroller-General of Patents was given the right of appeal on the licences of right. We were told that it would be too problematic to administer. The conclusive answer to that argument is that clause 228 already provides for licences of right during the five years of an unregistered design right term. In other words, there is the ability to copy any functional design, subject to licence, during the last five years of the 10-year term. That is already in the Bill.
      The Opposition say that spare parts should also be able to be copied only under licence and that to give adequate protection to the consumer that licence should be available from day one, if terms can be agreed. The copier could then copy but only with the consent of, and on terms agreed with, the manufacturer. If the parties could not agree terms, the matter would go to the Comptroller-General of Patents who would adjudicate upon it. That is precisely what would happen in the last five years of the unregistered design right term in any event. Whereas our proposal does not give complete design right protection, as we suggested in Committee, it is a workable compromise between the interests of consumers and the interests of industry.
      Mr. Terry Davis: My hon. Friend has clearly made a detailed study of this difficult matter. Specifically on the question of car spare parts and replacement parts, will my hon. Friend make it clear whether the proposal would mean that there would be a licence of right during the first five years as well as during the second five years, or does the proposal replace the existing provisions altogether?
      Mr. Blair: Under the Bill as drafted, car spare parts could be manufactured without any hindrance at all. In Committee, it was strongly suggested that spare parts should be given proper design right protection, but the amendment embodying that suggestion was not accepted by the Government. Our compromise proposal would allow copying, but only under licence from the original manufacturer. That would mean that the original manufacturer could secure—in the form of royalties, for example—compensation for his development costs and other investment.
      I fully accept that the car industry would like full unregistered design right protection for the entire five-year term, as with other functional designs. However, in view of the Government's opposition to that, we have produced a workable compromise. Whereas under the Bill as drafted copying could go on without any let or hindrance, under our proposal it could happen only under licence from the original manufacturer. That would allow the manufacturer to negotiate the terms on which the copying of spare parts could take place. As I said, that is a much better way of dealing with the matter than the Government's proposal.
      The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Industry and Consumer Affairs (Mr. John Butcher):Perhaps I may clarify the position. The hon. Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair) said that under the Bill as drafted,
      42
      copying could go on unhindered. That is not the case. Copying would be unhindered only for those parts of the spare part for which the alternative designer had no choice under the "must match" exception. In the case of a functional part for which an alternative design solution could be found—away from the parts of the part that must fit—there is design freedom. I would not want the hon. Gentleman to have the impression that copying of all kinds of any spare part is unlimited and free. That is not the case.
      Mr. Blair: That brings us back to the great bone of contention in Committee, what "must fit"/"must match" encapsulates and what it concerns. The Minister's intervention simply underlines the point. The truth is that industry has been through this Bill carefully and it does not have the faintest idea how it will be applied. Those involved in the car industry fear that their spare parts will be copied without any hindrance or obstacle. They are concerned that that will mean that their research and development costs and the investment that they made to manufacture the original part will be lost because the copier will be able to copy the spare part without difficulty. If we are being told that "must fit''/"must match" does not do that, we are being told something different from what we understood to be the truth in Committee.
      The advantage of our scheme is that it would ensure that the manufacturer had a bargaining point not merely in terms of a reward for the investment made, but, as one Conservative member of the committee said, in terms of quality. We are already aware that the quality of some of the spare parts manufactured by copiers is not the same as the originals. That is something that could be taken into account by the parties coming to an agreement or, in default of the agreement, by the comptroller. The Government argue that such a step is too bureaucratic and too complex, but the conclusive rebuttal of that argument is that licences of right will be available in any event for designs in the last five years of their term.
      In Committee the Minister advanced two other arguments in defence of the Government proposals. We have done some research on them and found them lacking in substance. The first argument that the Minister advanced was that the spare parts used in the aerospace industry will not get the benefit of unregistered design right, but that, none the less, many of those things could be patented and therefore the patent law could supplement whatever deficiencies may arise regarding unregistered design right. We have studied that argument carefully and the aerospace industry has told us that that is not the case. Concorde, for example, which is a fairly advanced piece of engineering on anyone's terms, only has 12 parts that are patented. The likelihood of being able to resolve the difficulties of unregistered design right through patent law is remote.
      The second argument advanced by the Minister with which I must take issue is that we are in step with other countries by not giving protection to functional design spare parts. He quoted West Germany as an example. I have studied the West German system and most of what we describe as functional design spare parts are protected by West German law. That protection is afforded in a slightly different way from our system, but none the less that protection is available.
      West Germany has two particular ways in which to protect functional designs. The first is under what the

      43
      Germans entitle a "gebrauchsmuster", which is a utility model term of protection. Italy uses a similar device. As a result, new functional designs that include some type of technical advance are given protection. Under the German design Act new and original designs which are not purely technical are also protected. Therefore its visual appearance has some bearing. That protection is so broad that it encompasses many of the things that would fit within our ordinary unregistered design right spare parts system. Although registered designs in the United Kingdom amount to 6,500 per year, in Germany registered designs run at 65,000 a year—10 times as many. In effect West Germany offers protection in many different circumstances to spare parts.
      The Minister will be aware that industry is extremely concerned about the Government proposals. There has been intensive lobbying from practically every part of British industry. Industry has said that many of the spare parts that are currently manufactured as original parts and which have protection will not be protected after the passage of the Bill. Is that correct? I asked the Minister that in Committee and I would like an answer today. Has there been a study of the exact impact of the Bill on British industry? Even allowing for the normal hype generated by lobbyists, they have made a powerful case to us about the effects of the Bill.
      4.45 pm
      In this Bill I do not believe that we should create some false dichotomy between industry and the consumer and that one must choose either to be pro-industry or pro-consumer. If copyright protection was abolished tomorrow it would inevitably mean that certain items would be copied and the price would come down. That might mean short-term benefits for the consumer, but in the long term there would be no benefits because industry would cease to invest. We must not make a choice between those interests, but strike a balance between them. We believe that we have struck a better balance than the Government and, for that reason, I commend our amendments to the House.
      Mr. Richard Page: I should like to discuss amendment No. 274, which is tabled in my name and in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Thurrock (Mr. Janman). Our amendment removes the "must match" exception in the Bill.
      I shall not rerun the complete Committee stage. I accept the Government's argument that the existing position on functional designs needs reassessing and must be brought into better order. The recent case to which the hon. Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair) referred shows that the existing system has been allowed to run for too long and that the consumer has suffered.
      In Committee it was clear, as the debate went on, that there was gathering disquiet about the Government's proposals. If the amendment that I put down in Committee had been put to a vote I believe that it would have been carried. That would have meant that the "must match"/"must fit" exception would have been removed. In that debate it became clear that industry was just waking up to the effects of those exceptions. More and more industries have been contacting me day by day to outline the effects of the "must match"/"must fit" exceptions on
      44
      their businesses. As time has gone by and as industry has become more aware, it is clear that the "must match" exception has given most concern.
      In Committee we had a marvellous time as many hon. Members produced all sorts of exhibits to illustrate their case. The hon. Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney (Mr. Rowlands) produced something which I thought at first was vaguely obscene, but which I then discovered was the seal from the front of a Hoover washing machine. One can see how a vital part such as that could be abused by a copyist.
      The forms of protection that have been proposed by the Government appear to be out of kilter. It is rather peculiar that a registered design can be given for 25 years for some fairly innocent item—I gave the Committee the example of a belt buckle—but under design right an item is given only five years' complete protection and for the other five years it can be copied under licence. It now appears that design right protection has been removed with the exceptions introduced in the "must fit"/"must match" areas. Surely, as night follows day, it is inevitable that when one talks about "must match" a discussion of car panels will follow. I shall be the first person to talk about car panels, since nobody else has.
      The issue that we are discussing is rather confusing. I agree with the hon. Member for Sedgefield, who said that the legislation will cause confusion. It could be a lawyer's paradise. I hope for greater clarification of the borderlines of where the exceptions will apply—and where they will not. The hon. Member for Sedgefield illustrated the point by mentioning Hoover parts, and a legal gentleman could have considerable fun and game in court ascertaining just where the line should be drawn.
      Let us return to car panels. I shall not take the House through the process of making a motor car again. I bored the Committee enough with that in June.
      Mr. Nicholas Baker: Hear, hear.
      Mr. Page: I thank my hon. Friend for his endorsement of the quality of my speeches in Committee.
      A considerable investment is made. The sum of £800 million has been quoted as the price of producing a new body shell that goes on the market. As the Bill stands, that £800 million-worth of body shell can be copied in bits and pieces from day one. It is not fair that a copier can start copying the bits that he wants with no recompense for or acknowledgment of the huge investment put in by the manufacturer.
      The Government say that the cry of competition is the reason. Fair enough: let us have competition, but let us make it fair. This is not fair, because a manufacturer makes a huge investment, which is entailed in his obligation to the consumer to make every spare part or panel that goes to make up a car. He cannot make only the parts that he thinks will sell in large numbers and ignore the ones that will be the subject of only limited demand.
      What is the copyist's obligation? None. He will cream off the panels that get damaged and for which there is high volume demand—and to blazes with the rest. He will not produce roof panels in competition with the manufacturer or produce bulkheads to ensure that the manufacturer is given appropriate competition. Copyists will put only high-moving parts into their factories. They will assure themselves of volume sales and manufacturers will be left to pick up their obligation to the customers.

      45
      The hon. Member for Sedgefield concentrated on the exception of "must fit". I have a growing impression from the companies that have contacted me that they can live with that exception. They do not like it or think it fair but when the crunch comes they think that they can just about accept it. But they cannot accept the "must match" exception and have vigorously campaigned to try to remove it.
      It is only right that we should cast an eye over what is happening in the rest of the EEC. In Germany and Italy, design registration protection is given to new and original designs, with an emphasis on aesthetic appearance. The German design law, passed in 1976, means that a typical design would require registration which would confer protection for a limited period. In France, protection is for designs that are industrially produced and of novel appearance, including designs whose shape is dictated by function. The Benelux and Scandinavian countries have a unified industrial law for designs in relation to appearance. Looking across at the EEC and some Scandinavian countries, we can see that the protection is in place there. As has already been said, there seem to be far more registrations there, too.
      In the EEC countries there are laws about unfair competition in Germany, France, Italy, Benelux, Denmark and Spain. The protection that those laws provide against unfair competition has supplemented some of the missing intellectual property rights. In the Benelux countries, the law is broad enough to cover a variety of activities which, in the United Kingdom, would have to be dealt with by copyright, if they could be dealt with at all. So an unfair competition approach permits a sensible distinction to be drawn between parts that can be copied, if there is not to be a monopoly, and those which can at least be differentiated.
      In the United Kingdom, now that we are a part of a larger economic unit, there is a feeling that some protection is needed for the enormous outlay of time and money involved in developing and testing new products of mass production which fall short of the test of inventiveness that qualifies a product for a patent. The hon. Member for Sedgefield mentioned a number of items that could possibly be patented that went into the construction of Concorde. I urge my hon. Friend to re-examie the provisions of the clause a little more closely. I hope he will find it in his heart to be charitable at this last-ditch stage and withdraw the "must match" exception.
      Mr. Rowlands: The value of Report stage of the Bill is that it gives us the opportunity to disgest some of the arguments and issues and to scrutinise what Ministers have said. Sometimes we find they have fobbed us off, or have bent the argument; sometimes they have addressed it and produced cogent cases against our amendments. Some of us have thus scrutinised the Minister's words since Committee stage. Now we have the chance to scrutinise the Minister's case against the pitch and argument of my hon. Friend the Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair) and the hon. Member for Hertfordshire, South-West (Mr. Page).
      One of the Minister's arguments was that a licence of right from day one would create a horrendous bureaucracy. There is a problem with that: he is not certain which way to argue. In his earlier intervention in the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Sedgefield, the Minister seemed to imply that many designs would attract that right. At the same time he argues that horrendous
      46
      bureaucracy would follow if we included a large number of parts in any form of copyright. We need to know exactly how many parts will be excluded from any design right by the "must fit"/"must match" arrangements. If a large number is involved, the Minister's argument that giving design rights and licensing rights from day one would entail bureaucracy might have some validity, but I shall argue that that grossly exaggerates the case.
      The Minister must make up his mind: will a large number of "must fit"/"must match" exclusions be free of any form of design right? If so, imposing the licence to right will create bureaucracy, in the Minister's view. On the other hand, the Minister seemed to give the impression earlier that we were exaggerating the number of parts that will not attract design right. He seemed to say that many more parts would attract design right than the industries that have made representations to him or those who have presented this case think.
      I shall not trespass on the subject of the important next group of amendments, which are concerned with what is original and what commonplace. That is another fundamental issue in the problem of defining how far design right reaches—or does not reach.
      I wish to tackle the Minister's case against what I thought was an extremely important initiative taken by a large part of industry. I am glad that the CBI has endorsed the suggestion that one way forward in the argument over spare or replacement parts would be to grant licences of right from day one. When we discussed this in Committee, the CBI had not yet supported that principle, and we had heard from only some sections of the industrial community. Since then, there has been general acceptance of that generous compromise by those who represent industry. The granting of a licence of right from day one would also enable the designer and manufacturer to specify the quality and safety of copies. I am deeply disappointed that the Minister will not seize on that compromise and carry it forward.
      5 pm
      The Minister argued that the compromise would create bureaucracy. From talking to firms in my area and others, and from representations that I have received, I know that the greatest administrative burden would be placed on those who grant the licences—the very people who support the amendment. A large part of the administrative burden will fall on those who advocate granting a licence of right from day one. They are willing to carry the burden of the many applications from companies that wish to make the parts that they originally designed.
      The Minister has grossly exaggerated the character of the licensing arrangements. Industry already spends a great deal of time licensing and has developed standard documentation and routines for dealing with applications. We should not be bamboozled or cajoled into conceding the Minister's argument that it would cause undue bureaucracy.
      The Minister also argued that much bureaucracy will fall on the Comptroller and that, if we waited for five years, we would have some case law to follow. He exaggerates the number of cases that would go to the Comptroller under our arrangement. We should not forget that parts are usually supplied under warranty. They will not need to be copied from day one, but those who want the right to copy them will then be able to apply for a licence. The copyists are not being placed at a great

      47
      disadvantage. By the time that the negotiations have taken place and a market in those spare parts has been created—after the warranty has expired—they will have the licences to copy those parts.
      In Committee, we pointed out to the Minister that we would have this problem in five years' time. Why will it be less bureaucratic after five years? The Minister said that, by that time, a considerable amount of case history will have been built up and there will be less bureaucracy, but how will case history be built up if there is a five-year delay? We shall have to deal with arguments about case history irrespective of whether licences of right are granted on day one or in the fifth year.
      On 14 June, the Minister said:
      "But it has been made clear to us that the European Commission would object if we increased the term or reduced or eliminated either of the exceptions."—[Official Report, Standing Committee E; 14 June 1988, c. 555.]
      Where is the evidence for that? We had many exchanges in Committee about the EC Green Paper on copyright law. Neither the Minister nor members of the Committee had seen it, although it had been seen by those concerned with the home taping levy and had been passed on to the Japanese. I thought that that would contain the evidence for the Minister's statement, but it contains little if any reference to those issues. If the EC objected to our suggestion, there would have been a specific reference to it in the Green Paper. The Minister said that we cannot amend our Bill because the EC would object, but its Green Paper makes no reference to the issue. We should not allow his argument to stand. Even if he produces such evidence, the House has the right—in the absence of EC law—to amend the Bill as we suggest.
      The Minister may try to argue about bureaucracy, but the most important thing about the key amendment in this group is that no one suggests that the original manufacturers or designers of parts should have a monopoly right. We are going much further than many others are willing to go. We are destroying the concept of monopoly and would grant people from day one the right to copy parts. That is an important compromise and, given the lack of consensus on the issue, it would be foolish for the Minister to turn his back on our important suggestions.
      Sir Hal Miller: I am a stranger to the debate so far, not having had the privilege of being a member of the Standing Committee, but I feel that something needs to be said in support of the Government on the issue, with specific reference to car panels. I was not provoked on this subject by my hon. Friend the Member for Hertfordshire, South-West (Mr. Page), but I was reminded of certain facts that need to be drawn to the attention of the House in support of the Government's position.
      I had intended to make the burden of my remarks on the series of amendments coupled with new clause 5, which deal with licences. I think that that is where my hon. Friend and I would find common ground, in that there should be a system of licensing that should provide for some reward for the original designer, although we might have some disagreements about how soon that licence should be obtainable and the royalty that should be paid.
      My point is about the need to match. With regard to car panels, it is important to bear it in mind that the whole
      48
      business came into being for two very good reasons. The first was the introduction of the MOT test, which is a measure that I hope we all welcome, but it necessitated the replacement of rust-damaged part panels. Our original equipment manufacturers were not in the habit of supplying part panels and had no wish to do so at that stage. They made a great deal more profit from supplying whole panels. We shall come to the point about the prices at which they supply whole panels, but the original concept was the rust-corroded part panel, which gave rise to the suppliers.
      Mr. Page: I agree with my hon. Friend about how this all came about. In the Bill we have the design right protection for five years and more, beyond which the panel makers will be able to produce automatically those types of panels. It is most unusual for a car panel to rust away after the five years. In the second five years, one can have a licence of right. So I agree with my hon. Friend, and look forward to what he says.
      Sir Hal Miller: I was coming to a further development, that the products of the independent panel makers were originally part panels, but later whole panels, for crash-damaged cars, for which there was a large demand. The whole panel's price was kept up by the original equipment manufacturers, particularly through their franchise system. Now we are reaching the subject of competition in the retailing of motor vehicles and supply of parts. The figures show that most customers remain with the franchise dealer while their vehicle is under warranty, super-cover and so on, but when that period expires there is a sharp decline in the numbers of those who travel, perhaps some distance, to the franchise dealer, and a great rise in the numbers of those who go round the corner to the man at the local garage, as I have been in the habit of doing, and ask for a repair. Many of us are familiar with the question that is asked: "Is this for insurance or are you standing the rap?" Often that produces a different answer from the customer, as to the type and extent of the repair that he wishes to be undertaken.
      What is beyond doubt is the decline in the number of people attending franchise dealers for spare parts after the period of warranty has expired and the tremendous growth that we are now experiencing in alternatives to franchise dealers. I am not supposed to be advertising, but a large number of firms are growing up, which supply various parts. We are seeing that trend partly because of the rigidities, expense and restrictions of the franchise system. That area needs to be further examined.
      I am not carrying out a vendetta against our car manufacturers, but when they complain about the independent panel manufacturers, we must say that they themselves have had recourse to those independent manufacturers. For example, if one peels the label of one of our well-known makers from the panel, one finds the independent panel maker's name underneath. That might strike some of us as a curious protection of therights—
      Mr. Tim Janman: In that example, would the original equipment manufacturer have given all the necessary details of the original design to the third-party copier so that he can manufacture the panel to the correct quality and standards?
      5.15 pm
      Sir Hal Miller: I am happy to respond to that question. I was not trying to lure my hon. Friend onwards, but I have to tell him that the independent company that supplied the panel from Germany is being prosecuted in this country by the same original equipment manufacturer for supplying identical panels in this country, although the manufacturer was buying the panels from the same company in another country. It was a ham-fisted attempt but that is what one is led to when trying to protect the franchise system.
      In another case, one of our original manufacturers, whom I shall protect by not naming him, set up his own subsidiary in Taiwan with the express purpose of manufacturing those selfsame panels. So the idea that we are getting the panel hot off the press in this country or in Germany, from one of our original car manufacturers, is far removed from the truth. We should not mislead ourselves into thinking that that is so.
      Mr. Matthew Carrington: Does my hon. Friend agree that having multiple sources is often a great advantage for the manufacturers of body panels, in case one of the sources of the body panels has a strike, goes out of business, and so on? Frequently one finds that many manufacturers are encouraged to produce components of all sorts for the motor industry, just to ensure that there is continuity of supply.
      Sir Hal Miller: I am one of those who constantly pay tribute in the House to the efforts of our major manufacturers to overcome their industrial relations problems. Those considerations are not so relevant now as they were 10 years ago. In the motor industry as a whole, it is commonplace that manufacturers seek single-source suppliers for longer-term deals and put out the design of the part, as long as the specification and quality reach the right standard. That is the trend. What my hon. Friend was talking about may have been true 10 years ago, but it is not so much the case for motor manufacturers now.
      We must support the Government on the "must match" exception because the panels have to comply with the original contours of the car if they are to be an effective replacement. One of the reasons given for maintaining the hoped-for monopoly and the franchise deal in respect of the panels is that there is a commitment to keep supplies for earlier models for 10 or 12 years. I wish that that was shown to be true and that the prices, where such panels were eventually discovered in the warehouse, bore some relation to the prices for panels that could be readily obtained from the independent manufacturers. The argument is not quite so much one way as some of my hon. Friends believe.
      Mr. Rowlands: I have listened carefully to the hon. Gentleman's case, but not one of his arguments has been deployed against the right to license from day one. He referred to a warranty period, which means that the right to license from day one would enable any copier to get his part into the market place in good time. The hon. Gentleman also referred to the quality of the specification. A right to license from day one could specify that. He also spoke about the relationship between the independents and the main manufacturer. A right to license from day one would take care of that. I remind the hon. Gentleman
      50
      that the clause does not relate only to the body panels of cars. It deals with washing machines and other complicated machinery.
      Sir Hal Miller: I said at the beginning of my speech that I intended to devote most of it to licensing, particularly registered design rights. We shall deal with that question when we consider the amendments grouped with new clause 5. I said that I thought that my hon. Friend the Member for Hertfordshire, South-West and I would reach common ground on that point. However, the Government need some support over the "must match" exception because the argument seems to be all in one direction. There are very good reasons for supporting the Government.
      Mr. Terry Davis: My hon. Friend the Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney (Mr. Rowlands) has just reminded the House that although the clause applies to replacement parts for motor vehicles, it also applies to the aerospace industry and a number of other industries, such as the electrical appliances industry. I accept what my hon. Friend has said, but I shall concentrate my remarks on the effect of this legislation on the car industry. I worked for many years on the marketing and the supply of spare parts for the industry. That was some years ago, but I continue to take an interest in it.
      My hon. Friend the Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair) said that a balance must be struck in the car industry. I agree with him. He referred to the need for the industry to be neither pro-industry nor pro-consumer. I agree with him about that, too. However, he spoke as though the industry consisted solely of motor manufacturers. It is a much more complex industry than that. It includes the manufacturers of spare parts. They are an extremely important part of the industry. Manufacturers of spare parts include a wide range of businesses, from Lucas and GKN at one end to very small firms, sometimes described as back-street firms, producing items such as body panel parts, at the other.
      We must also consider the dealers. There is a divergence of interest between the franchised dealer—franchised by the motor manufacturers—who receives a percentage of the price of a spare part and the unfranchised garage that does a large part of the servicing of motor vehicles. The latter is an extremely important part of the motor industry, consisting mainly of very small firms—of people starting up on their own.
      Similarly, the importers of vehicles have not been mentioned in this debate, but they must also be taken into account. If the Bill protects vehicle importers, we shall bar our own industry from supplying spare parts. French, German, Japanese and Italian cars account for a considerable number of the cars that are sold in this country. I should be loth to do anything that cut our spare parts manufacturers out of that very profitable business.
      Furthermore, the interests of consumers are not always identical. The original buyer of a motor car will have a different interest in spare parts from that of the person who buys a second-hand motor car. The second-hand car owner will have the greatest interest in the price of spare parts. He will require more of them, particularly the more expensive spare parts that the original owner of the car will not have to buy, unless there is an accident.
      Mr. Janman: The hon. Gentleman compares the interests of a person buying a new car with those of a

      51
      person buying an older car. Does he accept that as a car gets older it is inevitable that the number of parts that make up the total market place for that model will reduce and become more and more slow moving? If we allowed the "must match" exception to remain, the copiers would not be interested in the slow-moving parts. Only the manufacturer of the original equipment would be interested, and the price of the slow moving parts that go into older vehicles would increase.
      Mr. Davis: No, it is not like that at all. There is a business cycle for spare parts. To begin with, it is very slow moving. Then it builds up to a peak. That is when a motor vehicle is several years old. Depending on how long that model is kept in production and the number of vehicles sold, there is a rise to a peak in sales of spare parts. Then it tails off. It is not the case that the older the vehicle and the older the parts, the more slow-moving they will be. One could be selling more parts for older vehicles. I am referring to parts that wear out. There is a different pattern for parts that are replaced because of crash damage. I shall not bore the House by describing the various life cycles and business cycles of spare parts, but the hon. Gentleman has over-simplified the case.
      The owners of second-hand cars have a different interest in spare parts from those of fleet buyers or the owners of new cars. They will buy different sorts of parts. The person who buys a second-hand car will have to buy more expensive replacement parts, particularly body panel parts and engine parts. However, there is some community of interest between the motor manufacturer and the small manufacturer of body panel parts. When a car goes out of production, a motor manufacturer may run out of spare parts because it was impossible to envisage how many buyers of a spare part there would be when production ended.
      The motor manufacturer will want to obtain small runs of pressed parts from the so-called back-street manufacturers. If they did not exist, the motor manufacturers would be in great difficulties. Motor manufacturers rely on spare parts manufacturers in places like Coventry, particularly to provide spare parts for the kind of cars that are bought by enthusiasts and that people drive not for years but for decades. It is very difficult to obtain such body parts unless it is possible to arrange for a small run of pressed parts every few months or, more likely, every few years.
      It follows that there is not a complete divergence of interest between the various sections of the motor industry, even when we speak about motor manufacturers and body panel manufacturers.
      My hon. Friend the Member for Sedgefield referred to the need to reward the investment by motor manufacturers.
      Mr. Rowlands: My hon. Friend referred to the life cycle of parts. Will not the design right also have been worked out for spare parts? Would not licences for spare parts exist for up to five years? During that life cycle, copying would certainly be allowed. Has not my hon. Friend argued against the amendment?
      Mr. Davis: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. I am simply explaining that it is a more complicated industry than has been suggested. I shall turn to my hon. Friend's point in a moment.
      It is necessary to reward the motor manufacturer: but how is he to get his reward? It has been suggested in this debate that the motor manufacturer will be rewarded for his investment by selling spare parts. To do that, he will ask a lower price for the vehicle when it is sold and then ask a higher price for replacement parts. It is rather similar to a razor blade manufacturer who is prepared to give away razors, provided that he is allowed to sell the blades that fit the razor. But the interests of consumers vary. If we are not careful, we shall penalise consumers who buy second-hand cars. Generally speaking, they are in the lower income groups.
      To turn directly to the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Merthy Tydfil and Rhymney, it is not a question of body parts only. One of the largest segments of the spare parts business is exhaust systems. They do not last five years on a new car. The owners of cars often have to replace the exhaust system before the cars are five years old, so the replacement of exhaust systems becomes important within five years. Therefore, within that five-year period, some of those reasonably expensive parts and systems will be sold.
      It has been suggested that there should be a right to a licence from day one. That is a constructive suggestion. The difficulty is how much the licence will cost—that is, how much the motor manufacturer will charge the spare parts manufacturer for a licence from day one. That is where the conflict will occur. Of course, it will be in the interest of the motor manufacturer to extract the highest possible price for a licence from the replacement parts manufacturer. I am concerned as to how that will be sorted out.
      5.30 pm
      My hon. Friend the Member for Sedgefield suggested that there should be an appeal to some registrar. I understand that. But we are talking about many parts. It is not a case of a licence to make a single part. A very large number of parts will be involved, presumably with a different licence fee for each part.
      I am not surprised that at least some motor manufacturers agree with the idea of a right to licence from day one, provided that they can set the price of the licence. That is a key point. While they are negotiating, does the spare part manufacturer have the right to make the body panel or other part? That is an extremely important issue which my hon. Friend did not mention.
      My hon. Friend the Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney raised the very important questions of safety and quality. There are other ways of ensuring the safety of spare parts, and it is wrong to try to do it through this Bill, which does not deal with safety. There are laws on product liability and regulations on British standards. It is quite right that we control the safety of spare parts. As for quality, again it may be against the interests of the consumer for motor manufacturers to impose a quality standard upon the manufacturers of spare parts. Some famous names entered the replacement parts business making parts of a lower standard and quality than the original equipment provided by the motor manufacturers, but of a quality and standard acceptable to the consumer.

      53
      A classic name is the pioneer of exhaust systems known as Quinton Hazell, who founded his business on that principle. The consumers did not want the equivalent of gold-plated exhaust systems; they wanted serviceable exhaust systems, and he built a whole business on that concept by setting a standard of quality acceptable to the consumer, but of a lower standard than the original equipment from the manufacturers. That is part of the right of the consumer to choose. If a consumer pays a far lower price, he will not expect a standard of quality which he would receive from the original equipment manufacturer at a higher price.
      Mr. Page: Although an exhaust pipe is obviously not a safety part of a motor car, some manufacturers would be extremely concerned about the quality of any product made under licence, particularly a body panel, for example, that had taken part in crash tests to conform to the various regulations, and would not wish a cheapjack copier to make it out of much thinner material that would not deform in the same way, and give controlled deceleration and therefore, if it were fitted, would put the occupants of the car through the windscreen.
      Mr. Davis: The hon. Gentleman and I have no difference in our concern about road safety. We differ as to how those standards, which are important for road safety, should be imposed and monitored. I suggest that there are other ways to control the safety and quality of products. There are other laws which do that—not by giving the motor manufacturer a monopoly over the supply of replacement parts. That is the difference between us, although we have the same objectives.
      I am not surprised that the motor manufacturers do not like the "must fit"/"must match" concept. I am not surprised that the CBI does not like it because the CBI tends to reflect the views of the motor manufacturers, and I am not convinced that the CBI reflects the view of those who make the replacement parts. Certainly it would be to the disadvantage of those manufacturers, which are small firms, and if we are not very careful about the way in which we engage in this legislation, it may lead to higher prices to the consumers. The motor manufacturers are, by any definition, big business. Some of the manufacturers and suppliers of replacement parts are small firms, and their consumers tend to be people in the lower income groups.
      I have reservations about some of the views expressed by my hon. Friends, and I shall listen carefully to the Minister's reply.
      Mr. Janman: It is worth looking back at the Standing Committee, and worth remembering that when we had a long and intensive debate on the "must match" exception clause, every Conservative Member who spoke on the clause either counselled the Minister to proceed with at least caution, or expressed total opposition to it.
      Although I do not wish to repeat all that I said on Second Reading or in Standing Committee, I wish once again to make some comments against the "must match" exception and with that in mind I wish to speak in support of amendment No. 274, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Hertfordshire, South-West (Mr. Page) and me. It is also worth noting that when we debated the clause in Standing Committee, I hope that I am right in saying that we did not go to a vote because the Opposition had been left in a state of limbo as industry, through various different bodies—the CBI being the most notable—had
      54
      not really got its act together in presenting a coherent alternative strategy to the one which the Government were proposing at the time.
      My hon. Friend the Member for Hertfordshire, South-West said earlier that if there had been a vote in Committee on the "must match" exception clause, knowing how some Conservative Members would have voted or abstained in that Division, that clause would have been taken out of the Bill in Committee. I can verify that.
      Today, we are discussing how to improve the market place for the consumer. My hon. Friend the Minister will acknowledge that I am a strong supporter of increasing choice for the consumer and freeing up and deregulating markets and liberalising them so that the consumer has more choice. On the other hand, we wish to maintain fair competition and an adequate reward for the considerable investment in design and innovation by original equipment manufacturers.
      I agree with the hon. Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair) that this is not a case for deciding whether one is pro-consumer or pro-industry. I do not believe that the "must match" exception clause is pro-consumer, although I agree with earlier comments that the exception will hit a large number of manufacturers across the face of British industry and in many different industrial sectors—white goods, electronics, the motor industry and others. Because of my experience of working in the motor industry, I wish to focus my comments on how it will not help the consumer in that spare parts sector because the consumer does not have an interface with the people who are supplying the body panel. The middle man has that interface.
      My hon. Friend the Member for Bromsgrove (Sir H. Miller) was quite right when he said that if one goes to a back-street garage or a franchised dealer, one does not normally go there for a body panel. One goes there to have one's car serviced or, if body panels are involved, one is more likely to be going there to have a car repaired. One goes there to buy a repair service, not one particular body panel. Therefore, the consumer has no direct connection with the decisions as to which body panel and which supplier is used, whether it is a Taiwanese import, an import from the original equipment manufacturer or a body panel made in this country by the original equipment manufacturer. The consumer does not have the chance to exercise choice and value judgment as to the difference in quality, albeit accepting that a bottom-line safety net of quality and safety exists.
      The consumer is not in a position to make that choice because he does not come into contact with the supplier. The person carrying out the repair will decide whether he puts on a copied body panel or one from the original equipment manufacturer. He will decide what price is passed on to the consumer. If there is some fiddling going on—as there often is in this area—the consumer will be none the wiser as to what type of body panel is being fitted and whether the price paid correlates with that asked by the original supplier of the body panel.
      My hon. Friend the Member for Bromsgrove pointed out that in about 80 per cent. of cases, the consumer is not paying for the work done. Therefore, the consumer's interest in the intricacies of where the repairer is obtaining supplies is somewhat diminished. It would be different if the consumer was paying for it with readies from his own pocket. Whether it is a company car or a car owned by the consumer himself, in 80 per cent. of cases the repair is paid

      55
      for by the insurance company. It is fair to say that insurance company inspectors do not take much notice of whether the panel being fitted to the car says "Made in Dagenham" or whether it is made in Milan or wherever.
      Mr. Page: From my experience, when the inspector comes to estimate a job, he does not see any panels, because at that stage they would not have been ordered.
      Mr. Janman: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for pointing that out. It is a useful clarification of my point.
      To some extent I bow to the superior knowledge of the hon. Member for Birmingham, Hodge Hill (Mr. Davis), given his experience in this sector of the motor industry. However, surely he would accept that the total amount of business available to spare part manufacturers, whether it be the original equipment manufacturer or a copier, for gearboxes, front wing body panels or whatever for a 10-year-old mark I or mark II Escort is different from the business available for a one, two or three-year-old Sierra. He will acknowledge that the number of parts being sold for two or three-year-old Sierras is far greater than for 10-year-old Escorts. Therefore, the market for body panels for two or three-year-old Sierras is far more lucrative than that for 10-year-old Escorts.
      The copiers do not have to invest in copying the panels, because they do not have the original specification. They simply set up shop cheaply many thousands of miles away and copy the fast-moving panels. Therefore, understand-ably they are able to vastly undercut the original equipment manufacturer. The original equipment manufacturer will be left to supply the slower-moving parts and its margins will be squeezed because of the inevitable reduction in market share of fast-moving parts. Therefore, they will put up their margins on slow-moving parts. People on lower incomes who generally own older cars will have to pay the price if the "must match" exception clause remains in the Bill.
      I understand that the United Kingdom consumer organisations have expressed support for this liberalising measure. However, it is interesting that the BEUC, the European consumer body, understands what the ramifications will be for the overall standard of quality and safety and realises that the "must match" exception clause will lead to a diminution of quality. Therefore, it is not surprising that the BEUC did not intervene in the Veng v. Ford body panel case, brought by the European Commission. It takes the view that it will be against consumer interests for the Government to press ahead with the principle of the "must match" exception clause.
      We have to decide whether there are benefits to the consumer; I do not believe that there will be. We also have to decide whether there will be benefits to the nation as a whole; again, I do not believe that there will be. The legislation would put us out of step with design right protection for spare parts manufacturers in virtually every major European Community nation. The loss of revenue and the reduction of jobs in, for example, Ford, British Leyland and Vauxhall will not be balanced by any increase in opportunity for the small number of British-based copiers.
      Also, there will be no opportunities for new British-based copiers to spring up because they will not have European markets available to them in the same way
      56
      as foreign copiers do, because of the difference in law in terms of the strength of protection given to spare parts manufacturers in this country and the rest of Europe. Therefore, the jobs lost in the original equipment manufacturing sector of the industry will not be compensated for by any gains in the spare parts sector.
      5.45 pm
      The answer to the problem is not to move ahead with the "must match" exception clause but to give the right of compulsory licensing if there is proven monopoly abuse. I do not think that there is monopoly abuse at present. Because the original equipment manufacturer has to invest in the original technology and design of all parts, his costs for producing a particular body panel are much greater than those of a copier in Taiwan who has not had to invest in the early stages. It is worth noting that, in 1986, Ford's return on investment in body panels was only 3·6 per cent. That is hardly ripping off the consumer. Given an environment of fair competition and the costs that large manufacturers face when they first design a car, we do not want consumers to be ripped off. We should force manufacturers who are abusing their position to give licences to other people to compete.
      Unless circumstances of monopoly abuse prevail, the "must match" exception clause is not to the benefit of the consumer in the motor industry. It will have a detrimental effect on our manufacturing base in the motor industry and in the other industries affected. Therefore, I repeat the request by my hon. Friend the Member for Hertfordshire, South-West and ask my hon. Friend the Minister, at this late stage, to think again on this misguided course.
      Mr. Butcher: I thank hon. Members for continuing what has become a firm tradition of the Bill, which is to focus entirely on the merits of the argument. Yet again we have seen a diversity of opinion on both sides of the House. Without immediately displaying which side of the argument I wish to favour, all I will say is that my hon. Friend the Member for Bromsgrove (Sir H. Miller) and the hon. Member for Birmingham, Hodge Hill (Mr. Davis) did not grace our Committee. However, they have a reputation in the House as Members who are assiduous in the representation of all sectors of the motor industry and the interests of midlands manufacturing generally. There was much in what they said, and in the past I have found it to be compelling. I hope that the hon. Member for Hodge Hill will not be embarrassed, given the traditions of debates on this subject, if I say that his was a fine speech. There were many fine speeches in Committee and I hope that there will be many more on Report.
      The advantages of the Report stage and remaining stages are many. The hon. Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney (Mr. Rowlands) reminded us that we have a chance to look at the recorded comments and to re-analyse and retune our own arguments. It is also an opportunity to continue the discussions on several items within the Bill that remain controversial. It was during that period that hon. Members have spoken to several people outside who consider that vital interests are at stake. They have done so at all times with a sense of perspective and fair play.
      I hope that Opposition Members who have keyed some of their arguments against the position of the CBI as reported and of the British aerospace companies will not mind if I point out that I do not believe that the amendments have the unanimous support of the CBI. A

      57
      couple of weeks ago, I received a letter from the chairman of the CBI working group, which had been looking into design rights. He considered that he had to write to let me know that he could not support the CBI's views on the matter. The chairman's view was:
      "The Government had got its design proposals just about right."
      We have received further letters from other industrial sources who are also of the view that, at present, the design right proposals offer the right balance between the needs of designers and competitors. We had further discussions with the CBI.
      British aerospace companies are concerned because some matters of interpretation and principle are at issue. One of the outcomes of my discussion with them is that they better understood some of the terminology that we were using, but, perhaps most important of all, I was able to point out that the term of protection will not begin until articles made to a design are actually manufactured and are made available for sale or hire. I recently met representatives of the Society of British Aerospace Companies. They seemed to be content, particularly with the formulation of that part of the Bill. They suggested that the trigger for the term of protection might be the granting of an airworthiness certificate—that aircraft must be granted a certificate of airworthiness before they can be sold. So, usually, the 10-year term will begin only after such a certificate is granted.
      I agree with the hon. Member for Hodge Hill and my hon. Friend the Member for Bromsgrove. We discussed the interests of the motor industry in a variety of ways, but, on most occasions, it was said that, for every job in vehicle assembly plants, there are three or four jobs outside for those who supply components and parts to vehicle assemblers. We must bear in mind the interests of that part of the industry if the preoccupation of Opposition Members—I am sure that it is the case with Conservative Members—is with jobs, competitiveness and opportunities for such companies.
      Opposition Members have told us many times that we should be concerned about the ratio of imports into the United Kingdom. It is a matter of some sadness to those hon. Members who have loyalties to the midlands in particular to note the fall in the share of the British car market that is occupied by domestic manufacturers. It has happened. No doubt, on another day, we shall debate why it happened, but if 50 per cent.-plus of the car park, which is the term that manufacturers use, now rattling around this country is of foreign manufacture, should we not give an opportunity to British components and panel suppliers—those in the "must match" exception—to compete to supply Renaults, Volkswagens, Datsuns, and "fow-vays"? All such people could be legitimate targets for companies that hitherto have not found a friendly environment in which to ply their art, certainly in regard to industrial copyright.
      The hon. Member for Hodge Hill asked several questions. He asked whether it is true that industry will lose protection for spare parts when the Bill becomes law. The answer is that, in most cases, spare parts will gain the protection that they now lack. He referred to the judgment in the BL v. Armstrong case. Therefore, he should know that their Lordships held that copyright does not protect spare parts. However, design right will protect spare parts, subject to the "must fit"/"must match" exceptions. In summary, the protection of spare parts will, in general, be
      58
      increased rather than decreased by the Bill. The amendments bring us to those main features—"must fit"/"must match".
      I shall refer to the amendments tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Bromsgrove in a few moments, but first I shall summarise my understanding of the main thrust of the amendment moved by the hon. Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair) to make sure that we are all on the same wavelength. The hon. Member wants to delete the "must fit"/"must match" exceptions and, instead, provide that licences of right will apply to all spare parts from day one. He believes that that will allow competition in what would otherwise be captive after-markets, while giving original designers more of a say in what goes on.
      The hon. Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney has a slightly different solution. He wants to subject "must fit"/"must match" features to licences of right, again from day one. In some ways, the proposals are perfectly respectable—I can say that in respect of what is essentially a non-political Bill—but they suffer from one fundamental and, I am bound to say, fatal flaw. They would both mean that, every time someone wanted to compete by making an article that had to be fitted or matched to another article, he would need a licence.
      I appreciate that licences would enable the rights owner to exercise some control over what a competitor produces—for example, in respect of matters such as safety and quality. But any intellectual property right comes to an end at some point. In the case of design right, it is after 10 years in the market. All the factors such as safety that are of concern to the hon. Gentleman, are just as important after the intellectual property right has run out. At that point, the intellectual property law is of no help. That is why we have left a whole raft of separate, free-standing legislation and regulations on safety, and that is how it should be. In my view, the existing provisions on safety provide all that is necessary, and additional licensing provisions in design right are not necessary.
      That is particularly so because the licensing arrangements that have been proposed would have a number of highly undesirable consequences. First, the need for a licence would arise not only when a competitor wanted a copy the whole of an article in its entirety, but when a competitor wanted to use his own design and his own technology.
      We must bear it in mind that hon. Members have tried to champion the cause of the creative designer. In such circumstances, he would still need to copy the connecting features to make his product fit. The need either to seek a licence or to negotiate the terms and conditions of a licence of right could, at best, act only as a disincentive to design innovation. With the hon. Gentleman's amendments, if the article is not a replacement part, the design right owner could refuse a licence in the first five years. That would result in a monopoly that would shut everyone else out, and that would be the ultimate disincentive.
      Mr. Blair: If the "must fit"/"must match" exceptions do not apply, whoever wants to manufacture or copy a certain design must apply for the permission of the original designer in any event.
      Mr. Butcher: At this stage of a Bill's consideration, amendments are tabled as alternatives in a last try to come to a consolidated and considered view. The effect of the hon. Gentleman's amendment is as I have described it. He

      59
      tests me on the practicalities of my own position. I am bound to say that there is a surety to give suppliers of component parts a clear idea of what is required of them. In general, it is in common with median protection in other parts of western Europe. In taking this route, we have listened carefully to those who argued, as the hon. Gentleman has just argued, that we should seek a much better period of protection for original designers or we should erode it almost in its entirety. The hon. Gentleman's amendments seem to face in both directions. That is not a criticism of Opposition Members. They have had to wrestle with the same dilemma. To return to the comment of the ex-chairman of the CBI committee, I believe that we have the balance about right.
      6 pm
      I should do the hon. Member for Sedgefield the service of replying to the other implications of his amendments. The second, related problem is that they would involve a great deal of unnecessary red tape, although I do not intend to labour that point. The hon. Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney teased me about this in Committee and has done so again today. Nevertheless, it is true that, whenever a competitor wished to produce something that fitted or matched something else, a licence would be required. In some circumstances he would be entitled to a licence of right, but he would still have to negotiate the terms and conditions.
      We are working—I hope—to create a larger, more open, more competitive market. The thought of industry having to negotiate licences on every occasion as a precondition of competition does not merely irritate me or lead me to question the bureaucracy involved—it makes my blood run cold. It is simply not true that there are large areas of industry in which there will be no argument about licences. I have been involved with design protection for some years and one thing is crystal clear—there is controversy and argument wherever one looks.
      Under the Bill as drafted, the licence of right provisions will come into play only when a competitor wishes to copy an entire article or that part of an article for which there is design freedom and for which an alternative design is possible. They will not apply whenever somebody wishes to compete, as would be the case under the proposals of the hon. Member for Sedgefield. The difference in the number of times that licences would be needed under the two sets of proposals would be many orders of magnitude. To me, that difficulty is of itself fatal to both the hon. Gentleman's proposals.
      There are other detailed but no less important problems with the hon. Gentleman's amendments. For example, when is a replacement part not a replacement part? The hon. Gentleman made a valiant stab at a definition, but it is important to bear in mind that that question will have to be answered as each article is made. A single article cannot be "primarily made" as a replacement part. Amendment No. 227 states:
      "an article is manufactured as a replacement part if it is primarily made for use as a replacement".
      But it either is or is not made as a replacement part. I shall not go into that at length; I am sure that the hon. Member for Sedgefield does not wish me to reinterpret his amendment for him at this stage.
      60
      My hon. Friend the Member for Bromsgrove again spoke eloquently in defence of the "must match" condition that he seeks for the original manufacturer. Reference has been made to the possibility of the consumer being duped—for instance, a supplier taking a margin on what may be sold as an accredited spare panel from the original manufacturer. As the hon. Member for Hodge Hill reminded us, that is perhaps more within the remit of other legislation. Misleading the consumer can be dealt with in that way.
      With regard to safety, there are the general safety requirement and the British standards. I accept those arguments, and the insurance industry is highly interested in them, although there are times when it finds replacement parts fitted by non-original manufacturers perfectly acceptable for insurance purposes. I am familiar with the example given by the hon. Member for Hodge Hill—that of Quinton Hazell and his exhaust pipes. We discussed exhaust pipes at great length in Committee and at the current rate of progress we shall probably still be discussing them at 4 am tomorrow. Many companies begin their lives offering the customer cheaper alternatives and then move up market to become considerable and respected members of the industrial community.
      I have tried not to recast the arguments used in Committee in exactly the same way or on the same basis. The Opposition will, however, expect a reply from me on two important questions, and this is the last opportunity for me to give the information that they have demanded.
      I was asked what evidence we had that the European Commission would object to our increasing the term of design protection or removing the exceptions. I accept that there is no published evidence in recent Commission documents or elsewhere, but we discussed the matter with the Commission in the run-up to the Bill. The Commission had already objected to the excessive protection for functional designs given by United Kingdom copyright and was equally concerned that any new design law should not move out of line with protection elsewhere in the Community.
      The Commission was satisfied with our proposals on this basis but made it clear that additional protection might well lead to a formal complaint under the European Community treaty. That does not amount to being dictated to by the European Commission, because 10 years' protection, with appropriate exceptions and licensing arrangements, represents what we regarded as necessary in any event. It shows, however, that there is no truth in the allegation that we are giving less protection than the rest of the Community.
      Several references were made to design protection in Germany and the basic facts were largely correct. There is protection for basic designs under a utility model or petty patent system. There are also large numbers of design registrations; the Opposition were absolutely right about that. The essential point, however, is that neither of those forms of protection is equivalent to the design right protection provided by the Bill. Petty patents are granted only for inventive designs and registrations are possible only where the appearance of the design matters. A large number of designs, especially for spare parts, do not fall into either category, but they would be protected in the United Kingdom when the Bill becomes law although they are not protected in Germany.
      I hope that I have met the points raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Bromsgrove and by the Opposition

      61
      and that hon. Members will not seek to divide the House on an amendment which is not just illogical but impracticable.
      Mr. Blair: I entirely accept that these are difficult matters of judgment and I welcome the contributions of the hon. Member for Bromsgrove (Sir H. Miller) and my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Hodge Hill (Mr. Davis). I repeat, however, that the problem must not be seen merely as one concerning car spare parts. There is a great deal more to "must fit"/"must match" and design right than that. The Opposition have been accused of seeking a monopoly for the original manufacturer, but the basis of our proposal is that no such monopoly would exist. Rather, there would be a licence of right from the first day. That seems to take care of many of the objections, apart from the Minister's last point. The amendment would not affect the vast majority of original manufacturers or, indeed, of component manufacturers, so the car industry could operate very much as before, but under licence of right.
      The Minister found great difficulty in defining a replacement part, but that is as nothing compared with the difficulties of "must fit"/"must match", which give rise to enormous problems as to how much of a replacement part would have protection and the absurdity of some parts of the part having protection while others did not. If that exception is not applied, there is total protection over the entire period of the design right term. The Minister accused the Opposition of facing both ways on this. In fact, we are merely seeking a compromise between the interests of industry in rewarding its investment and the interests of the consumer.
      It is important to attain that compromise if we can. The only argument that has been advanced against it is that it would be too bureaucratic. I cannot believe that that is right. Licences of right and the concept of licensing apply throughout industry. Licences of right for the last five years of a design right are written into the Bill. Any function or design has a licence of right in its last five years, so provision is already made for licences of right in the Bill.
      I cannot believe that sensible people could not come to agreement in the vast majority of cases. Where they cannot, a body of case law will grow up from appeals, and the position will become clearer. We cannot allow manufacturing industry and its forward pattern of investment to be distorted, because a view is taken based simply on the problems of the motor industry.
      Our amendment is the best way forward as it provides for a workable compromise. We believe that it has the support of those in industry, who should know best how to look after their own affairs, and that the concept of licences of right for spare parts will protect the consumer.
      Nothing that the Minister has said convinces us that those arguments are wrong, so I ask my hon. Friends to support the amendment in the Lobby
      Question put, That the amendment be made:—
      The House divided: Ayes 132, Noes 257.

      Division No. 441]

      [6.11 pm

      AYES

      Allen, Graham

      Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)

      Anderson, Donald

      Barron, Kevin

      Archer, Rt Hon Peter

      Beckett, Margaret

      Armstrong, Hilary

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

      Ashton, Joe

      Bidwell, Sydney

      Banks, Tony (Newham NW)

      Blair, Tony

      62

      Boyes, Roland

      Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)

      Bradley, Keith

      McAllion, John

      Bray, Dr Jeremy

      McAvoy, Thomas

      Brown, Nicholas (Newcastle E)

      McKay, Allen (Barnsley West)

      Buchan, Norman

      McKelvey, William

      Buckley, George J.

      McLeish, Henry

      Caborn, Richard

      McTaggart, Bob

      Campbell, Ron (Blyth Valley)

      McWilliam, John

      Campbell-Savours, D. N.

      Madden, Max

      Clark, Dr David (S Shields)

      Mahon, Mrs Alice

      Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)

      Marek, Dr John

      Clay, Bob

      Martin, Michael J. (Springburn)

      Clwyd, Mrs Ann

      Martlew, Eric

      Coleman, Donald

      Meacher, Michael

      Corbett, Robin

      Michael, Alun

      Corbyn, Jeremy

      Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)

      Cousins, Jim

      Millan, Rt Hon Bruce

      Crowther, Stan

      Mitchell, Austin (G't Grimsby)

      Cryer, Bob

      Morgan, Rhodri

      Cummings, John

      Morley, Elliott

      Cunliffe, Lawrence

      Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)

      Darling, Alistair

      Mowlam, Marjorie

      Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)

      Mullin, Chris

      Dewar, Donald

      Murphy, Paul

      Dixon, Don

      O'Brien, William

      Dobson, Frank

      Page, Richard

      Doran, Frank

      Patchett, Terry

      Douglas, Dick

      Pike, Peter L.

      Dunwoody, Hon Mrs Gwyneth

      Powell, Ray (Ogmore)

      Eadie, Alexander

      Prescott, John

      Eastham, Ken

      Quin, Ms Joyce

      Ewing, Harry (Falkirk E)

      Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn

      Field, Frank (Birkenhead)

      Roberts, Allan (Bootle)

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

      Rogers, Allan

      Fisher, Mark

      Rooker, Jeff

      Flannery, Martin

      Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

      Flynn, Paul

      Rowlands, Ted

      Foot, Rt Hon Michael

      Sheerman, Barry

      Foster, Derek

      Short, Clare

      Foulkes, George

      Skinner, Dennis

      Fraser, John

      Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)

      Galloway, George

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

      Garrett, Ted (Wallsend)

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

      George, Bruce

      Soley, Clive

      Godman, Dr Norman A.

      Spearing, Nigel

      Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

      Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

      Grocott, Bruce

      Turner, Dennis

      Heffer, Eric S.

      Vaz, Keith

      Hinchliffe, David

      Wall, Pat

      Hogg, N. (C'nauld & Kilsyth)

      Wardell, Gareth (Gower)

      Hoyle, Doug

      Wareing, Robert N.

      Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

      Welsh, Michael (Doncaster N)

      Hughes, Roy (Newport E)

      Williams, Rt Hon Alan

      Hughes, Sean (Knowsley S)

      Williams, Alan W. (Carm'then)

      Illsley, Eric

      Wilson, Brian

      Ingram, Adam

      Winnick, David

      John, Brynmor

      Wise, Mrs Audrey

      Jones, Barry (Alyn & Deeside)

      Worthington, Tony

      Kinnock, Rt Hon Neil

      Lamond, James

      Tellers for the Ayes:

      Leighton, Ron

      Mrs. Llin Golding and Mr. Frank Haynes.

      Litherland, Robert

      NOES

      Adley, Robert

      Bellingham, Henry

      Alexander, Richard

      Bendall, Vivian

      Alison, Rt Hon Michael

      Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)

      Amess, David

      Benyon, W.

      Arbuthnot, James

      Biggs-Davison, Sir John

      Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

      Blackburn, Dr John G.

      Arnold, Tom (Hazel Grove)

      Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

      Ashby, David

      Boscawen, Hon Robert

      Ashdown, Paddy

      Boswell, Tim

      Atkins, Robert

      Bowden, A (Brighton K'pto'n)

      Atkinson, David

      Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)

      Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)

      Bowis, John

      Baldry, Tony

      Braine, Rt Hon Sir Bernard

      Banks, Robert (Harrogate)

      Brandon-Bravo, Martin

      Batiste, Spencer

      Brazier, Julian

      Beaumont-Dark, Anthony

      Bright, Graham

      63

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

      Hayward, Robert

      Bruce, Ian (Dorset South)

      Heathcoat-Amory, David

      Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)

      Heddle, John

      Buck, Sir Antony

      Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael

      Budgen, Nicholas

      Hicks, Robert (Cornwall SE)

      Burt, Alistair

      Hind, Kenneth

      Butcher, John

      Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)

      Butler, Chris

      Holt, Richard

      Butterfill, John

      Hordern, Sir Peter

      Carlisle, John, (Luton N)

      Howard, Michael

      Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

      Howarth, G. (Cannock & B'wd)

      Carrington, Matthew

      Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)

      Carttiss, Michael

      Hughes, Simon (Southwark)

      Channon, Rt Hon Paul

      Hunt, David (Wirral W)

      Chapman, Sydney

      Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)

      Chope, Christopher

      Hunter, Andrew

      Churchill, Mr

      Irvine, Michael

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

      Irving, Charles

      Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)

      Jack, Michael

      Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)

      Janman, Tim

      Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)

      Jessel, Toby

      Colvin, Michael

      Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey

      Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)

      Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

      Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

      Jones, Robert B (Herts W)

      Cope, Rt Hon John

      Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine

      Cormack, Patrick

      Kennedy, Charles

      Couchman, James

      Key, Robert

      Cran, James

      King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)

      Currie, Mrs Edwina

      Kirkwood, Archy

      Curry, David

      Knapman, Roger

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

      Knight, Greg (Derby North)

      Day, Stephen

      Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston)

      Devlin, Tim

      Knowles, Michael

      Dickens, Geoffrey

      Knox, David

      Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

      Latham, Michael

      Dover, Den

      Lawrence, Ivan

      Durant, Tony

      Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark

      Emery, Sir Peter

      Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)

      Evans, David (Welwyn Hatf'd)

      Lilley, Peter

      Ewing, Mrs Margaret (Moray)

      Lloyd, Sir Ian (Havant)

      Fallon, Michael

      Lord, Michael

      Favell, Tony

      Luce, Rt Hon Richard

      Fenner, Dame Peggy

      McCrindle, Robert

      Finsberg, Sir Geoffrey

      Macfarlane, Sir Neil

      Fishburn, Dudley

      MacGregor, Rt Hon John

      Fookes, Miss Janet

      MacKay, Andrew (E Berkshire)

      Forth, Eric

      Maclean, David

      Fowler, Rt Hon Norman

      Maclennan, Robert

      Fox, Sir Marcus

      McLoughlin, Patrick

      Franks, Cecil

      McNair-Wilson, Sir Michael

      Freeman, Roger

      McNair-Wilson, P. (New Forest)

      French, Douglas

      Major, Rt Hon John

      Fry, Peter

      Malins, Humfrey

      Gale, Roger

      Mans, Keith

      Gardiner, George

      Maples, John

      Garel-Jones, Tristan

      Marlow, Tony

      Gill, Christopher

      Marshall, John (Hendon S)

      Gilmour, Rt Hon Sir Ian

      Marshall, Michael (Arundel)

      Goodlad, Alastair

      Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

      Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

      Maude, Hon Francis

      Gorman, Mrs Teresa

      Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin

      Gorst, John

      Meyer, Sir Anthony

      Gow, Ian

      Miller, Sir Hal

      Gower, Sir Raymond

      Mills, Iain

      Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

      Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

      Greenway, John (Ryedale)

      Mitchell, David (Hants NW)

      Gregory, Conal

      Moate, Roger

      Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)

      Monro, Sir Hector

      Ground, Patrick

      Montgomery, Sir Fergus

      Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn

      Morris, M (N'hampton S)

      Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

      Morrison, Sir Charles

      Hampson, Dr Keith

      Morrison, Rt Hon P (Chester)

      Hanley, Jeremy

      Moss, Malcolm

      Hannam, John

      Moynihan, Hon Colin

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

      Mudd, David

      Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn)

      Neale, Gerrard

      Harris, David

      Neubert, Michael

      Haselhurst, Alan

      Newton, Rt Hon Tony

      Hawkins, Christopher

      Nicholls, Patrick

      Hayes, Jerry

      Nicholson, David (Taunton)

      64

      Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)

      Stern, Michael

      Onslow, Rt Hon Cranley

      Stevens, Lewis

      Paice, James

      Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)

      Patnick, Irvine

      Stewart, Andy (Sherwood)

      Patten, Chris (Bath)

      Sumberg, David

      Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

      Summerson, Hugo

      Porter, David (Waveney)

      Taylor, John M (Solihull)

      Portillo, Michael

      Thompson, D. (Calder Valley)

      Powell, William (Corby)

      Thorne, Neil

      Price, Sir David

      Thurnham, Peter

      Rathbone, Tim

      Townend, John (Bridlington)

      Redwood, John

      Tracey, Richard

      Riddick, Graham

      Tredinnick, David

      Ridley, Rt Hon Nicholas

      Twinn, Dr Ian

      Ridsdale, Sir Julian

      Waddington, Rt Hon David

      Rost, Peter

      Wakeham, Rt Hon John

      Ryder, Richard

      Walden, George

      Sackville, Hon Tom

      Waller, Gary

      Sayeed, Jonathan

      Ward, John

      Shaw, David (Dover)

      Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

      Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)

      Watts, John

      Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')

      Wheeler, John

      Shelton, William (Streatham)

      Widdecombe, Ann

      Shephard, Mrs G. (Norfolk SW)

      Wiggin, Jerry

      Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

      Wigley, Dafydd

      Sims, Roger

      Wilshire, David

      Skeet, Sir Trevor

      Winterton, Mrs Ann

      Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)

      Winterton, Nicholas

      Soames, Hon Nicholas

      Wood, Timothy

      Speller, Tony

      Young, Sir George (Acton)

      Spicer, Sir Jim (Dorset W)

      Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

      Tellers for the Noes:

      Squire, Robin

      Mr. Alan Howarth Mr. David Lightbown.

      Steel, Rt Hon David

      Steen, Anthony

      Amendment accordingly negatived.
      Mr. Rowlands: I beg to move amendment No. 322, in page 93, line 22, at end insert—
      'in determining whether a design is commonplace those features which are not visible to the naked eye shall be taken into account'.
      Madam Deputy Speaker (Miss Betty Boothroyd): With this it will be convenient to take amendment No. 323 in, page 93, line 22, at end insert—
      '(4A) A design is not commonplace for the purposes of this part if the creation of the design required a substantial input on the part of the designer of that design in terms of time and cost.'.
      Mr. Rowlands: I remind the House that clause 205(4) says:
      "A design is not 'original' for the purposes of this Part if it is commonplace in the design field in question at the time of its creation."
      Hon. Members who served on the Committee will know that we had considerable discussion, not about the semantics, but about the real meaning of the words "original" and "commonplace". I remind the Minister that, on 14 June, he said:
      "I am not able to accept the hon. Gentleman's amendment. I do not think that it was designed to be accepted, but we wish to achieve its objective. If 'commonplace' will not suffice, we shall try to find another solution."
      A little later he said:
      "I am not wedded to the word 'commonplace'. Amendment No. 407, tabled by the hon. Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney, is a good attempt to refine the expression."
      Therefore, he offered me some hope that he would study those words and their definitions.
      The Minister further said:
      "The meaning of 'commonplace' is a matter of ordinary English."

      65
      I believe it is, but it is not an easily definable term when relating to design matters. The Minister continued:
      "Whether a design is commonplace will be determined on the facts of the case. If we can find a better way of handling the matter, we shall do so."—[Official Report, Standing Committee E, 14 June 1988, c. 575–766.]
      We considered several illustrations in Committee, one of which was the armature which I am holding. It is for a Hoover washing machine. We asked whether it would be a commonplace part or whether it would attract a design right. For example, we asked whether the design of this door seal of a Hoover washing machine, which I am holding, is commonplace or whether it attracts originality and, therefore, a design right. Those are reasonable illustrations of the difficulty of matching practicality to legislation. The Minister assured us that he was not wedded to those words and therefore he felt that was a case for looking for another solution. That is what I am now trying to do.
      I am rather disappointed about the events that have fallen between Committee and Report stage. The Minister and his Department—I am sorry to make this criticism—but especially his Department, seem to have taken a completely passive, if not negative, view of the efforts made by others to define or redefine the words "original" and "commonplace". The Department just stood back and said, "If you lot can come up with any ideas to redefine the words, we will look at them." It has made little or no effort to join in a partnership of consideration to redefine the terms in subsection (4) and to decide whether the design of the Hoover armature or of the door seal would be a commonplace or an original design.
      Various industries and companies went to the Department and put up one or two suggestions which the Department, understandably, took apart. I have not, therefore, tabled amendments such as were discussed in Committee, but instead I have introduced two new ideas. Actually, they are not new and I shall describe their parentage.
      Before doing so, I remind the House that this is not just a matter of semantics and fiddling around with words—it is an important and serious issue. There is a fundamental difference of interpretation of the Bill as it stands as to what will attract design right and what will not. The Minister believes that many more parts in industry will attract design right and will be considered original, as opposed to commonplace, than at present, especially in a company such as the one I am privileged to represent in Merthyr Tydfil—Hoover. It believes, however, that parts of its washing machines would be deemed in law to be commonplace, but the Minister and his officials may believe them to be original. It is not just a matter of semantics—it is one of considerable concern as there are differences of interpretation.
      Having reminded the House of the two illustrations that I gave in Committee, I turn now to my two amendments, which seek to redefine first the word "commonplace" and secondly the word "original". Amendment 322 suggests that
      "in determining whether a design is comonplace those features which are not visible to the naked eye shall be taken into account".
      6.30 pm
      Where did I get those words? They did not come from any outside lobby. They were not from industry or from an axe-grinding group. I took them almost word for word
      66
      from the Department's own notes on the clause. especially those to the subsection. The valuable notes that were given to hon. Members serving on the Committee should be made available to any hon. Member. I draw attention to paragraph 3, which helped us to amplify and explain subsection (4) and the word "commonplace", and which stated:
      "It is important to note that there is no requirement that the design be aesthetically pleasing for design right to subsist. Nor is there any requirement for the design to be visible to the naked eye. Thus, for example, a design of the aesthetic appearance of a table lamp, the functional form of the external and internal parts of a pump and the functional internal layout of an integrated circuit microchip could all give rise to design right."
      That is why I am travelling with the hope that the Minister will accept my amendment. The words
      "not visible to the naked eye"
      are taken from the Minister's Department's interpretation of the subsection, so they have impeccable parentage. If the Department regards something that one cannot see as being relevant in design terms, it is worth stating that in the clause.
      Mr. Dafydd Wigley: As the hon. Gentleman knows, I have an interest in Hoover as I am a previous employee. Following our debate on this point in Committee, the British Automotive Parts Promotion Council has raised with me the point that stopping water coming out and dampening down harmonic vibrations would be a technical argument, as opposed to one relating to the shape of the configuration, and that as such it would not be a criterion for design right protection. How does the hon. Gentleman respond to that? I believe that we are both trying to go in the same direction.
      Mr. Rowlands: The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. If he recalls, the issue of the design of the Hoover door seal for a washing machine arose on the basis of the amendment that I was moving, which would state that technical factors would be taken into account in determining whether a part or the design of a part attracted design right. We used the door seal to illustrate that point. The very design of that part had an important effect on the whole performance of the machine. The Minister commented that he was not against the objective of my amendment when we discussed it in Committee.
      Amendment No. 322 about
      "not visible to the naked eye"
      is a way of recognising that the technical features are factors which could attract design right. Therefore, although to some extent I am going back to earlier arguments, on this occasion I am resting my case on the Department's own words. In paragraph 3 on the note of the clause, the Department made the clear point that the functional character of the design and not just its look, and therefore, in my view, its technical efficiency, could be a deciding factor whether the design is "commonplace" or "original". The hon. Member for Caernarfon (Mr. Wigley) is making an important point. I believe that my amendment reaches towards that principle.
      Amendment No. 323 tackles the issue slightly differently. It tries to establish that
      "A design is not commonplace for the purposes of this part if the creation of the design required a substantial input on the part of the designer of that design in terms of time and cost."
      That would capture the designs of the two parts that I have used as illustrations, but it would also cover many other parts. I believe that it expresses in words what the Minister

      67
      claims that the Bill states. I got those terms from a letter that the Minister sent to the Association of Manufacturers of Domestic Electrical Appliances. In an interesting and important paragraph, rejecting one suggestion from the industry, the Minister replied:
      "As I explained in Committee, and as I understand my officials said during your recent meeting,"—
      that is a reference to the meeting between AMDEA and his officials—
      "the term 'original' by itself does not require a design to be in any way different from what is widely known and used. Consequently the term 'commonplace' is needed simply to prevent mundane, routine, everyday, well-known designs from acquiring design right."
      I am sure that we all understand that because it is a reasonable statement. What interested me is that the letter continued:
      "For example, if someone were to 'design' a piece of uniform hollow tubing, such a design would be unlikely to pass the 'commonplace' test, and I would hope you would agree that this is the right result. It is, of course, not a question of whether the article is commonplace, but rather whether the design is commonplace,"
      The key words are:
      "I think if a company had spent two years designing something the result would be hardly likely to be a commonplace design."
      Therefore, in responding to a series of suggestions by the industry about what the words "commonplace" and "original" mean, the Minister's letter gave an important interpretation of the difference. He introduced the concept that if the design of the part had taken two years, it would be highly unlikely that it would be a commonplace design. That prompted me immediately to table amendment No. 323, which turns into legislative form the interpretation placed on the difference between commonplace and original in the Minister's letter to the industry. Therefore, I travel hopefully on both these amendments because of their excellent parentage.
      Mr. Thomas McAvoy: As my hon. Friend knows, I too am a former employee of the Hoover company, having worked at the Cambuslang plant. I am sure that my hon. Friend will agree that the substantial input into design and investment by the Hoover company in Cambuslang and in Merthyr has resulted in stable employment in those areas, and that the Government's proposals put that at risk.
      Mr. Rowlands: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. I seem to be surrounded by former employees of Hoover. I never had the privilege of having a start at Hoover. I never qualified and I do not think that the company would have let me near its factories. However, I am sure that both my hon. Friend and the hon. Member for Caernarfon speak from experience.
      I am simply saying that I do not see how the Government and the Minister could object to my two amendments because one comes from a note on the clause issued by the Minister's own Department and the second comes virtually straight from a letter that the Minister sent to the industry explaining and interpreting what "design", "commonplace" and "original" mean and the difference between them.
      As we all know, the problem is that Hansard, letters from Ministers and notes on clauses are not the law and have no legislative force when it comes, as no doubt it will
      68
      in the not-too-distant future, to a court case about what is commonplace and what is original. Therefore, I am seeking to make sure that what the Minister intends or what the Minister tells people that he is intending is translated into legislative form.
      Mr. Bob Cryer: I am interested in these two amendments because they seem to provide the sort of protection to which a manufacturer should be reasonably entitled. I was not a member of the Committee and there is sometimes a sort of understanding that only hon. Members who served on the Bill Committee have a contribution to make. That is not the case.
      I should like the Minister to elaborate on the case of a manufacturer of motor car pistons in my constituency. That manufacturer is Hepworth and Grandage Ltd. Are motor car pistons regarded as commonplace? If they are it would mean that any manufacturer could make or replace Hepworth and Grandage pistons. That firm has developed pistons that cause engines to use less oil than more conventional pistons. For example, the firm uses hardening in sections of the aluminium pistons. Such a difference is not often visible to the naked eye and would fall within the criteria of amendment No. 322.
      Hepworth and Grandage use many and varied techniques that are also covered by amendment No. 323. The firm has spent a great deal on research and development. For example, it has fitted sets of pistons that it has designed into test engines made by manufacturers such as British Leyland and Jaguar and those engines have been run over many hours. The engines were then dismantled and the pistons carefully examined to see where wear has taken place and to see what disadvantages accrued from the design features being tested.
      Such tests cost a great deal and it seems quite wrong that the design, testing and development of an object which to all intents and purposes, and certainly to the average onlooker, seems commonplace should be set to one side. Those processes might cost many hundreds of thousands of pounds and put a British manufacturer at a clear disadvantage. In any case, Hepworth and Grandage is at a clear disadvantage because it is the only major piston manufacturer left in the United Kingdom. Several have gone out of business in the past quarter of a century and we must make sure that we protect our diminishing manufacturing base.
      I remind the Minister that about 2 million jobs in manufacturing have gone since 1979. There has been an onslaught on the manufacturing base that the Government inherited in 1979. We are entitled to say that manufacturers that do not simply copy other products but invest in research and development and produce products superior to others should have the right not to have their products treated as commonplace and therefore open to imitation and production by other manufacturers. Such other manufacturers may not have invested in research and development and may not employ research and development staff. Such staff are often expensive to employ because of their specialist skills.
      Hepworth and Grandage is the largest private manufacturer in Bradford, with the largest number of workers. Its expertise and skill have enabled it to obtain a contract to provide pistons for the American company Buick. Because of its acknowledged position as one of the world's leading piston manufacturers it is building for Buick a piston manufacturing plant in America. That

      69
      world position has been achieved only because of its investment in research and development and for that reason I seek the Minister's assurance that amendments Nos. 322 and 323 will be accepted. If the Minister does not accept them, will he assure us that it is because there is within the Bill adequate protection for manufacturers such as Hepworth and Grandage? Will the Bill protect such a company from pirate imitations by manufacturers working on rock bottom prices and therefore able to obtain a competitive advantage?
      6.45 pm
      The Minister may talk about the market place being the sole criterion, but to adopt such an attitude would be extremely unfair. That is because it is easy for a manufacturer to pick up an object that it claims is commonplace and manufacture it without any research and development costs, thereby gaining a competitive advantage. That may seem attractive to the Minister, but if further research and development is needed to keep up with international competitive developments, a manufacturer such as Hepworth and Grandage will be placed at a severe disadvantage. It seems fair and reasonable to give such a company some protection.
      I look to the Minister to accept the amendments that were tabled and explained in Committee and based on the words of the Minister and a briefing provided to the Committee. If the Minister does not accept the amendments, will it be because he is satisfied beyond peradventure, as the lawyers say, that the Bill provides adequate protection? Almost certainly lawyers will become involved in this legislation and our job is to try to keep the lawyers out. When there is confrontation in court because of ambiguities in legislation it means that despite all the scrutiny in Committee upstairs and in the House this place has failed to provide clear legislation that will not lead to confrontation in court.
      I hope that no obscurities will exist in the legislation because of the Minister's refusal to accept the amendments that clarify and perfect the legislation in the way that my hon. Friend the Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney (Mr. Rowlands) has suggested. On the face of it those amendments seem to put forward very strong arguments.
      Mr. Butcher: I agree with the hon. Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Cryer) that our objective must be to design—if I may use that word—the Bill so that interpretation is minimal or at best simple. As a parliamentarian of some experience, he will know that trying to do that is never easy. Sometimes the efforts of parliamentary counsel who wish to clarify matters for the lawyers confuse things for the legislators, and we have even greater difficulty understanding some of the jargon.
      I shall shortly deal with the hon. Gentleman's point about that excellent company Hepworth and Grandage. Before I do that I should tell the House that my motivation was to try to find a better word than "commonplace". After consultation with my officials who consulted all these infamous draftsmen, I wrote to the hon. Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney (Mr. Rowlands) and said—I hope he did not think I was being flippant—that we had difficulties in finding another word that gave the benefits he sought to achieve.
      The hon. Gentleman criticised us for being passive, but that is a little unfair. Over many years my Department has been active in attempting to draw up clear and workable
      70
      provisions for the Bill. The word "commonplace" was chosen not at random but after much consideration, including the deliberations of a working group which looked at the protection of semiconductor chip design at European Community level. We have looked a: the matter again to be sure, but try as we might we have not seen a better formulation.
      The hon. Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney teased us about whether the notes on clauses and their relationship to my letter to him and subsequent observations meant that we were entirely convinced and not only agreed with his objectives but agreed that we should try to find another way. The passage that the hon. Gentleman quoted from the notes on clauses is. as he said, an explanation of the meaning of "design". Design does not need to be visible to receive design right. Amendment No. 322 is about the meaning of "commonplace", and that meaning is not assisted by adding other words out of context. The hon. Gentleman is still worried about the effect of the exclusion of commonplace designs. As I explained in Committee, the word "original" has the same meaning as that used in copyright in part I of the Bill—that is, independently created and not a copy.
      By itself, the word "original" does not require the design to be in any way different from what is already widely known and used, and that is too generous a test for the acquisition of rights in designs. We therefore need a test to prevent well-known, everyday, standard designs from acquiring rights. That is all that the commonplace test is intended to do. I said in Committee that I was open to suggestions about how that might be expressed in the Bill and the hon. Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney is now seeking to refine the meaning of the word "commonplace". I believe that the word "commonplace" expresses our intention well. I have considered the hon. Gentleman's suggestions carefully, but I do not think that they would help—indeed, amendment No. 323 could be positively harmful.
      Amendment No. 322 would require features that are not visible to the naked eye to be taken into account when assessing whether a design is commonplace. The problem is that that does not need saying. Design right is not restricted to visible features. There is nothing in the wording of the Bill that limits design right to features that are visible to the naked eye. Those features that are not visible to the naked eye, whether because they are internal, concealed features in the finished product or because they are too small to be seen, are covered by the Bill and, as a result, will automatically be taken into account at all levels. The only possible effect of stating the obvious—which is what the amendment seeks to do—is to cast doubt where none existed before.
      Amendment No. 323 is slightly different. The Bill does not achieve what the hon. Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney wants, and I do not think that it should. If the amendment were accepted, a designer who had spent a lot of time and money to come up with a well-known, everyday, commonplace design would get rights in that design. That is not the sort of design that we want to encourage.
      The test must be an objective one—is the design an everyday, commonplace design? If it is, there is no basis for an intellectual property right. It is for that reason, and not because we have not tried, that I have been resisting the amendment.
      Mr. Rowlands: I should like to answer the Minister's comments on amendment No. 323. I tabled the amendment to establish that time and input should be a factor in determining whether a design was commonplace or original because in his letter, the Minister said specifically:
      "I think if a company had spent two years designing something the result would be hardly likely to be a commonplace design."
      Yet he has now said to the House that that is not the sort of design that he wants to encourage. Did he mean the words when he wrote them, and is he now withdrawing them, or what? I do not understand his argument. I have used his own words and criteria in the amendment.
      Mr. Butcher: We are now interpreting plain English and attempts to make the English plainer or clearer, It is perfectly legitimate for me, or any hon. Member, to consider designers who make a considerable effort. The pistons which were mentioned by the hon. Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Cryer), although an allegedly commonplace article, required considerable effort, whether in heat treatment or a characteristic which gave a particular performance.
      If I identified as commonplace a paper clip or a piece of straight tubing that had been chopped into certain lengths, I believe that that would be a fairly accurate assessment. In saying that items that need far more intellectual effort and investment are not commonplace, I am not saying anything that the House under normal circumstances would find unacceptable.
      The hon. Member for Bradford, South made a fine speech on behalf of the prime employer in his constituency and asked whether the motor pistons that it produced were commonplace. I am afraid that that is the wrong question. As I have explained on several occasions, the question should be whether the piston design is commonplace. Some pistons will receive design right protection and some will not. It will depend on whether the design features employed are or are not commonplace.
      The hon. Member for Bradford, South mentioned a particular feature of a particular piston and said that it deserved protection; that is an argument that we have to meet. As I understand the example, the feature concerned was the material used, not the shape and configuration of the pistons.
      Design right applies only shape and configuration and it cannot and should not protect materials and composition. Such features should be protected under the patent system if they have sufficient merit.
      I agree with the contention of the hon. Member for Bradford, South. Massey-Ferguson in my own constituency is very concerned with the behaviour of mixtures of metals at very high temperatures; and it uses special heat treatment processes to produce special features in its components.
      Mr. Wigley: The Minister said that design right applied to shape and configuration. Surely that is the whole point of the amendment, which seeks to apply design right to what is out of sight, which is excluded at present.
      Mr. Butcher: We have wrestled with this matter for a long time. It is my duty, and it was the duty of the Committee, to try to make clear what would happen in the aftermath of our decision. Having gone through the matter with my officials and listened to advice from outside, I
      72
      believe that the use of the word "commonplace" will satisfy the requirement to deal with this thorny duty that I thought the House had placed upon us. Unfortunately, this is our last chance to do that, so we must treat the matter very seriously, and I think that this is the very best shot that we can make.
      Mr. Cryer: Does not the Minister agree that if there are to be differences from the commonplace in design, the relevant materials must be involved? For example, motor car pistons often work at high temperatures. The design shape is retained by virtue of the materials that are used, and they are part of the design. The piston is designed to maintain the compression of gases in the combustion chamber and to prevent the excess burning of oil from the crank case chamber. Designers therefore cannot ignore the material which, under pressure and heat, will change in one instance but remain true to the original design in the other, thus showing a superior design. The materials are not entirely separate from the shape and design. Amendment No. 322 deals with features that are not apparent to the naked eye, and materials must be among those.
      Mr. Butcher: I think that we are arguing at cross purposes. There is not much between us on the question of the interplay between materials and processes of manufacturing, but there is a distinction between those features and the shape and configuration of the article. Consider the most modern techniques of precision casting or heat treatment; certain shapes may become possible only if such technologies and techniques are introduced.
      Let me return to the practicalities. Someone may come along and try to rip off the shape of a piston into which a lot of work has gone. A competitor can do that only if the performance of the rip-off part is the same under certain engineering conditions. It is therefore legitimate to argue that we are discussing related issues. It is certainly true that some design options become possible because of the performance of certain materials, but the protection that the hon. Gentleman seeks is already there. A Taiwanese operation might want to supply rip-off, straight-copy pistons to given specifications but it would, I think, have great difficulty in convincing General Motors, for example, that the performance of those pistons—the aspects in which General Motors would be interested—would be adequate.
      The hon. Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney tested me further and said that the letter I had sent to him showed that I was inconsistent. I said that it was unlikely that anyone who spent two years and a lot of money on a design would come up with something commonplace, but that it was just possible that he might. As I have said, in that case he should not get protection. There is nothing inconsistent between the letter that I wrote to industry and what I said today.
      7 pm
      Mr. Rowlands: I am extremely puzzled and rather disappointed by the Minister's reply. I would have thought that the Minister would have reached out to us more in an attempt to assure us, if nothing else, about the cases that we have quoted.
      My hon. Friend the Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Cryer) has spoken about the close interrelationship between a design and the materials used to create it. The

      73
      Hoover washing machine door seal took a considerable time to design, but its success also depends upon the materials used to create it. Without such a combination there would be many problems regarding the performance of that machine.
      We have sought to emphasise the aspects of a design that are not naked to the eye and it is a strong case to make—it was mentioned in the Department's report. The time and effort that is put into a design should also be taken into account when determining whether something is commonplace or original.
      Mr. Cryer: The Minister has said that a rip-off imitation could be easily detected, but does my hon. Friend agree that that is not necessarily true? An original manufacturer of pistons may produce one that lasts for 90,000 miles and provides good service. The rip-off piston may only provide good service for between 20,000 and 30,000 miles, but by that time it is possible that the source of the rip-off will have been forgotten.
      Mr. Rowlands: It is true that a copy may work perfectly well for a given period of time, but when it breaks down the consumer will not complain to the copyist, but to the manufacturers, for example Hoover. The same is true if a piston or other car part breaks down.
      I shall not push this amendment. The Minister says one thing, but industry says another. We give the Minister notice that if we find that we were right and he was wrong after the Bill has been passed, we shall demand amending legislation as quickly as possible. We shall have to wait and see. I hope that we are wrong and that the Minister is right, but if not we shall have to come back to it.
      In the light of the arguments, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
      Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

    Clause 27

      MEANING OF "INFRINGING COPY"
      Amendment made: No. 162, in page 12, line 26, at end insert—
      'section (Transfer of copies of works in electronic form) (2) (further copies, adaptations, &c. of work in electronic form retained on transfer of principal copy),'.—[Mr. Butcher.]
      The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Corporate Affairs (Mr. Francis Maude): I beg to move amendment No. 242, in page 12, line 31, leave out from beginning to 'or'.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Paul Dean): With this it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments:No. 6, in page 27, line 26, leave out clause 69.
      No. 234, in clause 69, page 27, line 26, leave out from 'private' to end of line 35 and insert—
      'purposes of—

      (a) a recording of a broadcast or cable programme, or a copy of such a recording, or

      (b) a photograph of a television broadcast or cable programme, or a copy of such a photograph,

      does not infringe any copyright in the broadcast or cable programme.
      (2) An act done with a view to the thing made being sold or let for hire, played or shown in public, broadcast or included in a cable programme service shall be treated for the purposes of this section as not done for private purposes.'.
      No. 316, in page 27, line 29, leave out—
      'or in any work included in it'.
      Government amendment No. 243.
      Amendment No. 25, in schedule 2, page 152, line 21, leave out from 'purpose' to end of line 23.
      Mr. Maude: This amendment is about time shifting and it is a subject that has given pleasure to many people. I am bound to say that I have some hesitation tonight in proposing to the House that we should remove from the clause that element that has given so much innocent fun to so many.
      In Committee, when I moved the proposal to legalise private recordings which were kept for 28 days or less, I did not foresee the excitement that that modest proposal would generate. It was regrettable that those who expressed opinions so vividly and so swiftly left out the usual preliminary stage of finding out what the proposal was about. I was astonished, for example, only a day or so after the Committee had reached its decision, to read in the newspaper the remarks of a Queen's counsel who thought that the Government's proposal was outrageous and that it was quite wrong to use the criminal law to prohibit home copying. The propositions that we were invoking the criminal law and that in some way we were taking steps to restrict home copying were wrong, as a cursory examination of the proposal would have disclosed.
      I am bound to say that, in the middle of all the innocent fun that was had, some serious harm was done by those who reacted in a somewhat hysterical way to the proposal.
      I received a number of letters from people, especially from the elderly, who were in genuine distress and anxiety at the spectre of police invading their homes to check the age of their video recordings. The pundits and the politicians who made those fanciful suggestions must or should have known how far from the truth they were.
      Let us be quite clear about the present position. It is a breach of copyright to copy any television programme except a live broadcast of, for example, a sporting event. Therefore it is legal to record the test match live in the afternoon—should there be any play and should anyone want to—but not legal to record the highlights in the evening. Presently, virtually all video recording of television programmes is in breach of copyright law. The amendment that was passed by the Committee was thus a liberalising measure and not a restrictive one. Perhaps I should read that out again at dictation speed to make sure that it is understood. The amendment made legal much more than is at present legal. It sought to bring within the law those people who are at present outside it.
      Because it is widely accepted that the practice of time shifting—the recording of a programme in order to watch it at a more convenient time—does no harm to the copyright owner, we have sought to make it legal. Because the building up of video libraries by individuals may well cause detriment to the copyright owner, it is necessary under the Berne convention that copyright law should continue to apply to those recordings.
      Clause 69 will allow recording of a broadcast or cable programme solely for the purpose of enjoying it at a more convenient time without infringement of any copyright, whether of the broadcast or cable programme or of any work included in it. Under its provisions, Members of this House could set their video recorders to record this evening's television broadcasts in order to view them tomorrow morning or at the weekend and they would not infringe any copyright.
      When the clause was introduced in Committee, we added the 28-day proviso since we thought this would

      75
      provide an additional safeguard to copyright owners against practices which damage their interests. The rest, as they say, is history. The rule gave some people a lot of fun, some of it perhaps at my expense. I do not begrudge them their fun all that much.
      It occurs to me that there may be those—no doubt the same people who criticised the first proposal—who will seek to present this amendment as a U-turn. They would be as wrong now as they were then. The 28-day proposal made the law more liberal than it is now. By removing the 28-day proviso the law will be more liberal still. So, far from making a U-turn, this is a further move in exactly the same direction.
      Clause 69 minus the 28-day rule still only permits time shifting. It does not permit the recording and long-term retention for repeated viewing of television programmes. Such practices may, and in the case of broadcast feature films do, damage the copyright owner's interest by their impact on the rental market, and to a lesser extent on cinema exhibition.
      The adoption of amendments Nos. 242 and 243 will allow the public to record television programmes for the purposes of time shifting. In passing I assume that amendment No. 25 is an error and was tabled in over-enthusiasm to remove the 28-day period. The 28-day period in schedule 2, which amendment No. 25 would delete, is concerned with the broadcasters' so-called "ephemeral right" only and is set out in clause 67.
      I commend the amendment to the House.
      Mr. Mark Fisher: We have heard a delightful and extremely subtle speech from the Minister. Anyone coming into this debate might have felt that he was treating us to an example of time shifting since there were times during his speech when I thought I was back in Committee listening to exactly the same speech that he gave us about 28 days ago.
      Perhaps people will wish to delete both speeches and erase them from their recorder and library of video tapes of the Minister's favourite speeches. Hon. Members who have been treated to his speech before found it a little rich that he tried to pass this off as a great liberalising measure. He may have convinced himself, but I doubt whether he will convince many members of the public who have suffered anxiety and distress on this score. He limited legality to 28 days and said that from then on people would be in breach of the law, which caused anxiety, so it was difficult for him to say that it was an example of his great liberalising mood. However, he kindly said that he did not begrudge us our fun—adding slowly, "all that much." His hon. Friends behind him may not have seen his icy, stretched smile when he said that. Nevertheless, the words came out even if the eyes and mouth remained static.
      The truth is that the Government and the Minister got themselves into the most almighty mess in Committee and were justly ridiculed there and, the next day, in the press. One of the more serious newspapers referred to the Minister as a parliamentary jester. Many hon. Members might think that my hon. Friend the Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks) fills that role to everyone's satisfaction, but obviously the Minister was trying to compete with him. He certainly awoke to fame the next morning, but it was fame of an unfortunate sort.
      76
      Being a reasonable and sensible man, he set to work with his civil servants to review the matter and find some alternative. The difficulty was that he had considered the obvious solution—to delete subsection (2)—in Committee and categorically refused it. I do not want to rub salt in his wounds, but it is worth repeating his words: that deleting subsection (2)
      "would be in breach of the Berne Convention and it would not be a reasonable balance between the rights of copyright owners and the users."—[Official Report, Standing Committee E, 9 June 1988; c. 479.]
      Having so categorically ruled out the one thing that would get him off the hook, the Minister has had difficulty in recent weeks squaring the position. I am delighted to say that he has now come forward with an amendment that will delete subsection (2), in spite of the fact that, as far as I can see, nothing has changed. Certainly, the Berne convention has not. If the Minister believed this was in breach of it then, it still is now. Nor has the Government's view of the convention changed; nor has the balance between the rights of consumers and users. In any case, the Government have come to their senses and now propose to leave out subsection (2). If hon. Members look at the Order Paper they will notice that it must be enormously encouraging for the Government to know that they have the unqualified support of the hon. Member for Northampton, North (Mr. Marlow), without which no Government can survive.
      Although this is a huge improvement which will relieve the anxiety and distress to which I have referred, the provision is by no means perfect yet. There are still problems. I hope the Minister understands them. The last seven words of subsection (1)—
      "or in any work included in it"—
      mean that internal composite copyrights as part of any broadcast are still included. That presents some problems, unfairnesses and potential dangers which could, in future, become very serious.
      There are still anomalies in merely deleting subsection (2). Hon. Members on both sides must understand that the Minister is legalising off-air recording, but tape-to-tape recording will remain illegal. The Minister may have some way out of that, in which case I hope he will tell us about it. The distinction between off-air recording and tape-to-tape is not easily made. Even after the Government amendment goes through, tape-to-tape will be illegal, and off-air recording legal. Is that reasonable? How can the Minister possibly enforce it? It is as unenforceable as his original 28-day ruling.
      7.15 pm
      There is a further difficulty, in that the rights of copyright owners will be harmed. Libraries of film, opera and other broadcast work will be able to be built up, to the financial detriment of copyright owners. That is in breach of the Berne convention, article 9 of which states that unless there is compensaion such actions are serious matters. So, although this gets the Minister out of being ridiculed by the popular press and most people in pubs all over the country, the new provision does not deal with these and other anomalies and problems which remain.
      The difficulties are genuine. We all want time shifting for domestic purposes to be legal—so much is common sense. Broadcasters want that, too. However, we should not ignore the rights of copyright owners and of composers which, in five or 10 years' time, when there will be different technology, more tape-to-tape machines, more

      77
      stereos with better quality of recording for sound and more satellite services, will be more complex than we can anticipate now. So we must get it right now. I fear that although we have freed ourselves of one difficulty with this amendment, which we welcome, we have not solved all the problems.
      Possibly the only way to deal with this is the tape levy, which we shall consider later. It is a solution that other European countries have come up with. But for the time being, we welcome the Minister's having admitted, with some dignity, the error of his former ways on time shifting—though not perhaps with the enormous grace and humour for which we had hoped. In doing so, he has pleased a great many people.
      Mr. Simon Coombs: I join the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central (Mr. Fisher) in congratulating my hon. Friend the Minister on the way in which he has escaped from his dilemma and spoken about the subject.
      I had the misfortune not to catch the eye of the Chairman of the Selection Committee and was not a member of the Standing Committee. I learned of this proposal on a Friday morning while mowing my lawn. I received a phone call from my local newspaper reporter who asked me for a comment. It is said that we can all remember where we were when the late President Kennedy was assassinated. I can vividly remember the sense of shock on coming to the phone and being asked to comment on a proposal by the Government that we should impose a 28-day restriction on the recording of programmes from the television.
      My immediate reaction is recorded in the Swindon Evening Advertiser as having been an expression of surprise, which was an understatement. I used rather stronger language than that. I said that I thought the proposal would be unenforceable and that it was very unlikely that a civil action would be taken by film manufacturers—in the case of films shown on television—or by the television companies which caused the films to be shown. I wondered aloud to my friend the reporter how the evidence would be obtained which would show when recordings had been collected, and the most recent occasion when they had been used, which would call into question the number of days for which they had been kept.
      The hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central put the argument clearly and I shall not repeat it. Time shifting cannot reasonably be limited to 28 days. I received a letter from the wife of an army officer who is serving abroad. She said that she would like to be able to keep programmes that she had recorded until her husband's return from his next tour of duty abroad, which would not be within 28 days. Under the Bill, that would constitute a more reasonable time, but it would not be within 28 days.
      People have told me in my surgery that they have stayed within the law all their lives but wonder whether they will be put outside it by this provision. However innocent and well intentioned my hon. Friend's proposal may have been, it caused genuine distress to a large number of people. What is time shifting? Under the Bill, even with subsection (2) deleted, we are told that it is keeping a recording until a more reasonable or convenient time in order to watch a product that has been recorded. Why is that not the case with a tape library compiled by someone who is busy in his normal life but considers that he would like to watch a film in the future which he does not have
      78
      time to watch at present? It could be argued that tape libraries fall within this general principle of time shifting, and I invite my hon. Friend to comment on that.
      I am delighted that the Government have not looked for half measures and have not tinkered with the subsection, but have agreed to delete it completely. That is much the best way of resolving the problem. I welcome the Minister's conversion, and I enjoyed the way in which he justified it in terms of greater liberalisation. It is interesting that the Government are prepared to change their mind on the matter not once, but twice. It gives me hope that they will listen to our arguments on another important aspect of the Bill. When we come to the debate on home taping, we must persuade the Government to change their mind on that aspect, too. In the end, it is not the change of mind that matters but getting the Bill right. In this instance, they have got it right—for the time being. In the other case, we still have an argument to make. I am pleased to support the amendment.
      Mr. Page: I welcome the withdrawal of the subsection. I was a member of the Committee—I heard my 5 per cent. of the debate—and I was grateful to the Whip on duty who released me from the Committee five minutes before the end, which enabled me to turn a cowardly cheek towards the more ribald comments of my less-than-respectful constituents during that weekend.
      But the withdrawal of the subsection does not mean the disappearance of the problem of breach of copyright. In the absence of compensation to copyright owners under clause 69, it is doubtful whether it complies with article 9 of the Berne convention. We shall have more than enough time during the debate on the blank tape levy to deal with those points, but I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will consider the protection of copyright and the introduction of some recompense to copyright owners when the Bill proceeds to another place.
      Mr. Maude: I appreciate the dilemma in which my stance put the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central (Mr. Fisher). He could not make up his mind whether to carp or gloat, so he did a bit of both. But his carping was misplaced. He asked about my remarks in Committee on the Berne convention. The convention says that copying must not conflict with normal exploitation of the work, or unreasonably prejudice the legitimate interests of the copyright owner. Even without subsection (2), the clause is limited to time shifting and, as we have said on previous occasions, time shifting does not conflict with normal exploitation or unreasonably prejudice legitimate interests.
      Subsection (2) was included to reinforce the fact that subsection (1) does not permit indefinite retention of recordings, but we now accept that specifying an arbitrary limit would produce the wrong result in many cases of genuine time shifting. Removal of subsection (2) legitimises genuine cases, but practices going beyond time shifting will continue to infringe copyright. The Berne convention must be given an interpretation that produces a realistic and practical result, and we consider that our approach in this difficult area does that.
      My hon. Friend the Member for Swindon (Mr. Coombs) said that his constituents who had always abided by the law were anxious that my proposals would put them outside the law. That is not the case. Anyone who has been recording television programmes has been in breach of

      79
      copyright law. The proposal that I moved in Committee would have brought some of them within the law. It would not have put outside the law anyone who is at present inside it. It is important to get that straight. It is not a question of withdrawing the amendment that we moved in Committee, which was a liberalising measure. Removing the 28-day subsection is a further liberalising measure. Both move in the same direction: bringing people who carry out an essential innocent activity within the law. I commend the amendment to the House.
      Amendment agreed to.

    New clause 3

      APPLICATTON FOR REVIEW OF ORDER AS TO LICENCE
      '.—(1) Where the Copyright Tribunal has made an order under section 123 or 124, the licensing body or the persons entitled to the benefit of the order may apply to the Tribunal to review its order.
      (2) An application shall not be made, except with the special leave of the Tribunal—

      (a) within twelve months from the date of the order or of the decision on a previous application under this section, or

      (b) if the order was made so as to be in force for 15 months or less, or as a result of the decision on a previous application under this section is due to expire within 15 months of that decision, until the last three months before the expiry date

      (3) The Tribunal shall on an application for review confirm or vary its order as the Tribunal may determine to be reasonable in the circumstances.'.—[Mr. Butcher.]
      Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.

    New clause 4

      EFFECT OF ORDER OF TRIBUNAL AS TO LICENCE
      '.—(1) Where the Tribunal has made an order under section 123 or 124 and the order remains in force, the person entitled to the benefit of the order shall if he—

      (a) pays to the licensing body any changes payable in accordance with the order or, if the amount cannot be ascertained, gives an undertaking to pay the charges when ascertained, and

      (b) complies with the other terms specified in the order,

      be in the same position as regards infringement of copyright as if he had at all material times been the holder of a licence granted by the owner of the copyright in question on the terms specified in the order.
      (2) The benefit of the order may be assigned—

      (a) in the case of an order under section 123, if assignment is not prohibited under the terms of the Tribunal's order; and

      (b) in the case of an order under section 124, if assignment was not prohibited under the terms of the orginal licence.'.—[Mr. Butler.]

      Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.

    New clause 5

      PROVISIONS WITH RESPECT TO CERTAIN DESIGNS REGISTERED BEFORE COMMENCEMENT
      '.—(1) Where a design is registered under the Registered Designs Act 1949 in pursuance of an application made after 12th January 1988 and before the commencement of this Part which could not have been registered under section 1 of that Act as substituted by section 255 above—
      80

      (a) 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, and

      (b) any person is, after the commencement of this Part, entitled as of right to a licence to do anything which would otherwise infringe the right in the registered design.

      (2) The terms of a licence available by virtue of this section shall, in default of agreement, be settled by the registrar on an application by the person requiring the licence; and the terms so settled shall authorise the licensee to do everything which would be an infringement of the right in the registered design in the absence of a licence.
      (3) In settling the terms of a licence the registrar shall have regard to such factors as may be prescribed by the Secretary of State by order made by statutory instrument.
      No such order shall be made unless a draft of it has been laid before and approved by a resolution of each House of Parliament.
      (4) Where the terms of a licence are settled by the registrar, the licence has effect from the date on which the application to the registrar was made.
      (5) Section 11B of the 1949 Act (undertaking to take licence of right in infringement proceedings), as inserted by section 260 below, applies where a licence is available as of right under this section, as it applies where a licence is available as of right under section 11A of that Act.
      (6) Where a licence is available as of right under this section, a person to whom a licence was granted before the commencement of this Part may apply to the registrar for an order adjusting the terms of that licence.
      (7) An appeal lies from any decision of the registrar under this section.
      (8) This section shall be construed as one with the Registered Designs Act 1949.'.—[Mr. Butcher.]
      Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.

    New clause 6

      TRANSFER OF COPIES OF WORKS IN ELECTRONIC FORM
      '(1) This section applies where a copy of a work in electronic form has been purchased on terms which, expressly or impliedly or by virtue of any rule of law, allow the purchaser to copy the work, or to adapt it or make copies of an adaption, in connection with his use of it.
      (2) If there are no express terms—

      (a) prohibiting the transfer of the copy by the purchaser, imposing obligations which continue after a transfer, prohibiting the assignment of any licence or terminating any licence on a transfer, or

      (b) providing for the terms on which a transferee may do the things which the purchaser was permitted to do,

      anything which the purchaser was allowed to do may also be done without infringement of copyright by a transferee; but any copy, adaptation or copy of an adaptation made by the purchaser which is not also transferred shall be treated as an infringing copy for all purposes after the transfer.
      (3) The same applies where the original purchased copy is no longer usable and what is transferred is a further copy used in its place.
      (4) The above provisions also apply on a subsequent transfer, with the substitution for references in subsection (2) to the purchaser of references to the subsequent transferor.'.—[Mr. Butcher.]
      Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.

    New clause 7

      PERIOD AFTER WHICH REMEDY OF DELIVERY UP NOT AVAILABLE UNDER PART I
      '(1) An application for an order under section 98 (order for delivery up in civil proceedings) may not be made after the

      81
      end of the period six years from the date on which the infringing copy or article in question was made, subject to the following provisions.
      (2) If during the whole or any part of that period the copyright owner—

      (a) is under a disability, or

      (b) is prevented by fraud or concealment from discovering the facts entitling him to apply for an order,

      an application may be made at any time before the end of the period of six years from the date on which he ceased to be under disability or, as the case may be, could with reasonable diligence have discovered those facts.
      (3) In subsection (2) "disability"—

      (a) in England and Wales, has the same meaning of the Limitation Act 1980;

      (b) in Scotland, means legal disability within the meaning as in the Prescription and Limitation (Scotland) Act 1973;

      (c) in Northern Ireland, has the same meaning as in the Statute of Limitations (Northern Ireland) 1958.

      (4) An order under section 108 (order for delivery up in criminal proceedings) shall not, in any case, be made after the end of the period of six years from the date on which the infringing copy or article in question was made.'.—[Mr. Butcher.]
      Brought up, and read the First time.
      Motion made and Question proposed, That the clause be read a Second time.—[Mr. Butcher.]
      Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Paul Dean): With this it will be convenient to discuss the following: Government new clause 8—Order as to disposal of infringing copy or other article.
      Government new clause 9—Jurisdiction of county court and sheriff court: Part I.
      Government new clause 10—Period after which remedy of delivery up not available under Part II.
      Government new clause 11—Order as to disposal of illicit recording.
      Government new clause 12—Jurisdiction of county court and sheriff court: Part II
      Government new clause 13—Order as to disposal of infringing article, &c.
      Government new clause 14—Jurisdiction of county court and sheriff court: Part III.
      Government amendments Nos. 164 to 169, 174 to 177, 180 to 183, 185 to 190, 193, 195 to 198.
      Amendment No. 279, in clause 288, page 133, line 40, leave out from 'court' to end of line 5 on page 134, and insert
      'before which a person is charged with an offence under section 58A may, whether he is convicted of the offence or not, if it appears to the court that he has in his possession, custody or control any goods or material which are

      (a) good or material in respect of which any offence under section 58A has been committed; or

      (b) goods of the same description as those in respect of which the offence was committed, or material similar to that in respect of which the offence was committed, bearing a mark identical to or nearly resembling that in relation to which the offence was committed; or

      (c) goods or material which fall within paragraph (a) or paragraph (b) of section 58A(1) and whose resemblance to the goods or material bearing a registered trade mark is such as to satisfy the court that they have been created with the intent mentioned in paragraph (b) of section 58A(2) (whether or not the creator is before the court);

      order that the goods shall be forfeited and destroyed or otherwise dealt with as the court may think fit.'.
      Government amendments Nos. 199 to 203.
      Mr. Iain Mills: The Minister knows my strong views on counterfeiting and the need for forfeiture. It is highly desirable to ensure that all articles identified as counterfeits are removed from circulation. As I understand it, clause 288 allows for forfeiture only when a person has been convicted.
      I am grateful to the Minister and his officials for listening to my comments on the matter when we met recently, and I had hoped that he might have had some sympathy or a more wide-ranging power. It is important to summarise the fact that forfeiture should not be altered on the sole ground that counterfeit goods have been found under the present powers in the Bill. If the goods are counterfeit, forfeiture should be possible.
      7.30 pm
      Mr. Butcher: My hon. Friend's amendment would make it possible for a criminal court to order forfeiture of a person's property whether or not he had been convicted of an offence. Such provisions appear in earlier clauses in relation to copyright and performance rights, but not here in relation to counterfeits.
      There is a fundamental difference between counterfeits and articles that infringe copyright or performance rights. Counterfeits are essentially trade mark infringements that are created or used with the purpose of passing them off as being genuinely associated with a legitimate user of the mark in question. Whether that additional element is present is a question for the court to determine, and it cannot do so on the basis of goods or materials alone. It depends on the state of mind of the accused. If there has been no conviction, we can see no way in which the courts could, in law, distinguish between counterfeits and purely civil trade mark infringements. It would be wholly wrong to give criminal courts jurisdiction over purely civil infringements. That is the function of the civil courts and the procedure applying there.
      For that reason only, I cannot accept my hon. Friend's amendment as drafted.
      Question put and agreed to.
      Clause read the Second time, and added to the Bill.

    New clause 8

      ORDER AS TO DISPOSAL OF INFRINGING COPY OR OTHER ARTICLE
      '(1) Where an infringing copy or other article has been delivered up in pursuance of an order under section 98 or 108, or has been seized and detained in pursuance of the right conferred by section 99, an application may be made to the court—

      (a) for an order that it shall be forfeited to the copyright owner or destroyed or otherwise dealt with as the court may think fit, or

      (b) for a decision that no such order should be made.

      (2) In considering what order (if any) should be made, the court shall consider whether other remedies are available in an action for infringement of copyright would be adequate to compensate the copyright owner and to protect his interests.
      (3) Provision shall be made by rules of court as to the service of notice on persons having an interest in the copy or other articles, and any such person is entitled—

      (a) to appear in proceedings for an order under this section, whether or not he was served with notice, and

      (b) to appeal against any order made, whether or not he appeared;

      and an order shall not take effect until the end of the period within which notice of an appeal may be given or, if before the

      83
      end of that period notice of appeal is duly given, until the final determination or abandonment of the proceedings on the appeal.
      (4) Where there is more than one person interested in a copy or other article, the court shall make such order as it thinks just and may (in particular) direct tht the article be sold, or otherwise dealt with, and the proceeds divided.
      (5) If the court decides that no order should be made under this section, the person in whose possession, custody or control the copy or other article was before being delivered up or seized is entitled to its return.
      (6) References in this section to a person having an interest in a copy or other article include any person in whose favour an order could be made in respect of it under this section or under section (Order as to disposal of illicit recordings) or (Order as to disposal infringing article, &c.) of this Act or section 58BA of the Trade Marks Act 1938 (which make similar provision in relation to infringement of rights in performances, design and trade marks).'.—[Mr. Butcher.]
      Brought up, read the First and Second tirne, and added to the Bill.

      JURISDICTION OF COUNTY COURT AND SHERIFF COURT: PART I
      '.—(1) In England, Wales and Northern Ireland a county court may entertain proceedings under—

      section 98 (order for delivery up of infringing copy or other article),

      section 101(5) (order as to exercise of rights by copyright owner where exclusive licensee has concurrent rights), or

      section (Order as to disposal of infringing copy or other article) (order as to disposal of infringing copy or other article),

      where the value of the infringing copies and other articles in question does not exceed the county court limit for actions in tort.
      (2) In Scotland proceedings for an order under any of those provisions may be brought in the sheriff court.
      (3) Nothing in this section shall be construed as affecting the jurisdiction of the High Court or, in Scotland, the Court of Session.'.—[Mr. Butler.]
      Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.

    New clause 10

      PERIOD AFTER WHICH REMEDY OF DELIVERY UP NOT AVAILABLE UNDER PART II
      '(1) An application for an order under section 190 (order for delivery up in civil proceedings) may not be made after the end of the period of six years from the date on which the illicit recording in question was made, subject to the following provisions.
      (2) If during the whole of any part of period a person entitled to apply for an order—

      (a) is under a disability, or

      (b) is prevented by fraud or concealment from discovering the facts entitling him to apply,

      an application may be made by him at any time before the end of the period of six years from the date on which he ceased to be under a disability or, as the case may be, could with reasonable diligence have discovered those facts.
      (3) In subsection (2) "disability"—

      (a) in England and Wales, has the same meaning as in the Limitation Act 1980;

      (b) in Scotland, means legal disability within the meaning of the Prescription and Limitation (Scotland) Act 1973;

      (c) in Northern Ireland, has the same meaning as in the Statute of Limitations (Northern Ireland) 1958.

      (4) An order under section 194 (order for delivery up in criminal proceedings) shall not, in any case, be made after the end of the period of six years from the date on which the illicit recording in question was made.'.—[Mr. Butcher.]
      Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.

    New clause 11

      ORDER AS TO DISPOSAL OF ILLICIT RECORDING
      '(1) Where an illicit recording of a performance has been delivered up in pursuance of an order under section 190 or 194, or has been seized and detained in pursuance of the right conferred by section 191, an application may be made to the court—

      (a) for an order that it shall be forfeited to such person having performer's rights or recording rights in relation to the performance as the court may direct, or shall be destroyed or otherwise dealt with as the court may think fit, or

      (b) for a decision that no such order should be made.

      (2) In considering what order (if any) should be made, the
      court shall consider whether other remedies available in an action for infringement of the rights conferred by this Part would be adequate to compensate the person or persons entitled to the rights and to protect their interests.
      (3) Provision shall be made by rules of court as to the service of notice on persons having an interest in the recording, and any such person is entitled—

      (a) to appear in proceedings for an order under this section, whether or not he was served with notice, and

      (b) to appeal against any order made, whether or not he appeared;

      and an order shall not take effect until the end of the period within which notice of an appeal may be given or, if before the end of that period notice of appeal is duly given, until the final determination or abandonment of the proceedings on the appeal.
      (4) Where there is more than one person interested in a recording, the court shall make such order as it thinks just and may (in particular) direct that the recording be sold, or otherwise dealt with, and the proceeds divided.
      (5) If the court decides that no order should be made under this section, the person in whose possession, custody or control the recording was before being delivered up or seized is entitled to its return.
      (6) References in this section to a person having an interest in a recording include any person in whose favour an order could be made in respect of the recording under this section or under section (Order as to disposal of infringing copy or other article) or (Order as to disposal infringing article, &c.) of this Act or section 58BA of the Trade Marks Act 1938 (which makes similar provision in relation to infringement of copyright, design right and trade marks).'.—[Mr. Butcher.]
      Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.

    New clause 12

      JURISDICTION OF COUNTY COURT AND SHERIFF COURT: PART II
      '.—(1) In England, Wales and Northern Ireland a county court may entertain proceedings under—

      section 190 (order for delivery up of illicit recording), or

      section (Order as to disposal of illicit recording) (order as to disposal of illicit recording),

      where the value of the illicit recordings in question does not exceed the county court limit for actions in tort.
      (2) In Scotland proceedings for an order either of those provisions may be brought in the sheriff court.
      (3) Nothing in this section shall be construed as affecting the jurisdiction of the High Court or, in Scotland, the Court of Session.'.—[Mr. Butcher.]
      Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.

    New clause 13

      ORDER AS TO DISPOSAL OF INFRINGING ARTICLE, &C.
      '(1) Where an infringing article or other thing has been delivered up in pursuance of an order under section 222, an application may be made to the court—

      85

      (a) for an order that it shall be forfeited to the design right owner or destroyed or otherwise dealt with as the court may think fit, or

      (b) for a decision that no such order should be made.

      (2) In considering what order (if any ) should be made, the court shall consider whether other remedies available in an action for infringement of design right would be adequate to compensate the design right owner and to protect his interests.
      (3) Provision shall be made by rules of court as to the service of notice on persons having an interest in the article or other thing, and any such person is entitled—

      (a) to appear in proceedings for an order under this section, whether or not he was served with notice, and

      (b) to appeal against any order made, whether or not he appeared;

      and an order shall not take effect until the end of the period within which notice of an appeal may be given or, if before the end of that period notice of appeal is duly given, until the final determination or abandonment of the proceedings on the appeal.
      (4) Where there is more than one person interested in an article or other thing, the court shall make such order as it thinks just and may (in particular) direct that the thing be sold, or otherwise dealt with, and the proceeds divided.
      (5) If the court decides that no order should be made under this section, the person in whose possession, custody or control the article or other thing was before being delivered up or seized is entitled to its return.
      (6) References in this section to a person having an interest in an article or other thing include any person in whose favour an order could be made in respect of it under this section or under section (Order as to disposal infringing copy or other article) or (other as to disposal of illicit recordings) of this Act or section 58BA of the Trade Marks Act 1938 (which make similar provision in relation to infringement of copyright, rights in performances and trade marks).'.—[Mr. Butcher.]
      Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.

    New clause 14

      JURISDICTION OF COUNTY COURT AND SHERIFF COURT: PART III
      '.—(1) In England, Wales and Northern Ireland a county court may entertain proceedings under—

      section 222 (order for delivery up of infringing article, &c),

      section (Order as to disposal of infringing article, &c.) (order as to disposal of infringing article, &c), or

      section 226(5) (application by exclusive licensee having concurrent rights),

      where the value of the infringing articles and other things in question does not exceed the county court limit for actions in tort.
      (2) In Scotland proceedings for an order under any of those provisions may be brought in the sheriff court.
      (3) Nothing in this section shall be construed as affecting the jurisdiction of the High Court or, in Scotland, the Court of Session.'.—[Mr. Butcher.]
      Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.

    New clause 16

      BRITISH SHIPS, AIRCRAFT AND HOVERCRAFT: PART I
      '. —(1) This Part applies to things done on a British ship, aircraft or hovercraft as it applies to things done in the United Kingdom.
      (2) In this section—

      "British ship" means a ship which is a British ship for the purposes of the Merchant Shipping Acts (see section 2 of the Merchant Shipping Act 1988) otherwise than by virtue of registration in a country outside the United Kingdom; and

      86

      "British aircraft" and "British hovercraft" mean an aircraft or hovercraft registered in the United Kingdom.'.—[Mr. Butcher.]

      Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.

      BRITISH SHIPS, AIRCRAFT AND HOVERCRAFT: PART II
      '. —(1) This Part applies to things done on a British ship, aircraft or hovercraft as it applies to things done in the United Kingdom.
      (2) In this section—

      "British ship" means a ship which is a British ship for the purposes of the Merchant Shipping Acts (see section 2 of the Merchant Shipping Act 1988) otherwise than by virtue of registration in a country outside the United Kingdom; and

      "British aircraft" and "British hovercraft" mean an aircraft or hovercraft registered in the United Kingdom.'.[Butcher.]

      Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.

    New clause 18

      CROWN USE OF DESIGN RIGHT: COMPENSATION FOR LOSS OF PROFIT
      '. —(1) Where Crown use is made of a design, the government department concerned shall pay—

      (a) to the design right owner, or

      (b) if there is an exclusive licence in force in respect of the design, to the exclusive licensee,

      compensation for any loss resulting from his not being awarded a contract to supply the articles made to the design.
      (2) Compensation is payable only to the extent that such a contract could have been fulfilled from his existing manufacturing capacity; but is payable notwithstanding the existence of circumstances rendering him ineligible for the award of such a contract.
      (3) In determining the loss, regard shall be had to the profit which would have been made on such a contract and to the extent to which any manufacturing capacity was under-used.
      (4) No compensation is payable in respect of any failure to secure contracts for the supply of articles made to the design otherwise than for the services of the Crown.
      (5) The amount payable shall, if not agreed between the design right owner or licensee and the government department concerned with the approval of the Treasury, be determined by the court on a reference under section 242; and it is in addition to any amount payable under section 232 or 233.
      (6) In the application of this section to Northern Ireland, the reference in subsection (5) to the Treasury shall, where the government department concerned is a Northern Ireland department, be construed as a reference to the Department of Finance and Personnel.'.—[Mr. Butcher.]
      Brought up, and read the First time.
      Mr. Butcher: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to take the following: Government new clause 19—Crown use of registered design: compensation for loss of profit
      Amendment No. 14, in clause 231, page 102, line 41, at end insert—
      '(d) purposes of protecting the environment.'.
      No. 15, in page 102, line 41, at end insert—
      '(d) civil defence purposes'.
      Government amendment No. 99.
      Amendment No. 32, in page 102, line46, after 'matters', insert—
      'and which agreement relates specifically to the articles concerned or to equipment embodying such articles'.
      No. 26, in page 103, line 11, at end insert—

      87
      '"competent authority" means a Secretary of State, a Minister of State or a Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State acting in person.'.
      No. 28, in page 103, line 19, leave out
      'either before or after the use and'.
      No. 29, in page 103, line 21, at end insert—
      'but may not be given after the use'.
      No. 27 in clause 232, page 103, line 26, leave out subsection (1) and insert—
      '(1) Subject to this section, Crown use of a design by a government department, or by a person authorised by a government department, under section 231 shall be made only after a competent authority has given notice in writing to the government department concerned authorising such use.
      (1A) No authorisation shall be given under this section unless the competent authority has notified the design right owner in writing of the intention to use or authorise the use of his design for the services of the Crown and such authorisation shall not be given unless either—

      (a) at the expiration of three months beginning with the date of service of the notice on the design right owner no agreement between the design right owner and the government department has been con-cluded; or

      (b) before the expiration of said period the design right owner has given notice in writing to the government department concerned that no such agreement is likely to be concluded within that period.

      (1B) An authorisation under this section may be given by a competent authority without compliance with subsection (1A) of this section in any case where the government department concerned.

      (a) is unable to ascertain the identity of the design right owner on reasonable enquiry; or

      (b) where, and for so long as, it appears to the competent authority that the disclosure of use of the design for the services of the Crown would be prejudicial to the safety of the State.

      (1C) Where Crown use is made of a design, the government department concerned shall, in cases not falling within paragraphs (a) and (b) of subsection (1B) of this section, give to the design right owner such information as to the nature and extent of use as he may from time to time require.'.
      Government amendments Nos. 335 to 337, 245, 249 and 157.
      Mr. Butcher: New clauses 18 and 19 and amendments Nos. 335 to 337,245 and 249 deal with the issue of how the compensation to be paid for Crown use is to be calculated, especially in relation to lost profits. That was a point raised in Committee by my hon. Friend the Member for Canterbury (Mr. Brazier) and we think that it is right that there should be compensation for lost manufacturing profit. In this respect, a rights owner will be able to claim compensation both for lost trading profit and for losses in respect of underused capital assets. Of course, any claimant must be in a position to supply the Crown from his existing capacity; he will not be able to claim losses by arguing that he could supply the Crown by building a new factory, and he will not be able to claim for further losses. For example, where a foreign Government order from the same source as the Crown, the claimable loss will not include lost profits in respect of foreign orders that go elsewhere because the Crown has gone elsewhere.
      I am sure that those new arrangements will make a very significant contribution towards ensuring that the Crown user provisions do not act in any way as a disincentive to those who would invest in R and D. Unlike a number of other issues arising on Crown use, they are concerned only with the practical, economic effects of Crown use and do
      88
      not depend on the nature of the property right involved. We are therefore proposing to make the necessary change in respect of design right, registered designs, and patents, which will mean that any manufacturer can be sure that he will receive fair and proper compensation, irrespective of the type of right he holds.
      Another point raised in Committee by my hon. Friend was the width of the provisions on foreign defence. His point was that the Bill would allow any article to be supplied to a foreign Government wherever we had any sort of agreement with the Government concerned. Amendent No. 99 includes the words "in pursuance of", which has exercised my hon. Friend to a considerable extent, the idea being that there must be a connection between what is in the agreement and what is supplied to the Government concerned. I do however recognise that my hon. Friend may see amendment No. 99 as a case of one step forward, one step back, because it refers to "agreements or arrangements".
      The inclusion of a reference to "arrangements" will cover any memorandum of understanding that we have with a foreign Government. That is unavoidable because the United Kingdom has very few formal "agreements" with other countries. In this regard, "agreements" is a legal expression and most of the United Kingdom's dealings with other countries will not qualify as an "agreement". The expression "arrangement" is therefore quite proper. However, my hon. Friend made the point that many of these "arrangements" are cast in very broad terms, without any reference to particular equipment. His argument is that, as a consequence, clause 231 will give the Ministry of Defence carte blance to supply any equipment to those countries.
      I can, however, tell my hon. Friend that the Ministry of Defence does not intend to rely on general, non-specific memoranda of understanding that do not define the equipment to be supplied. It is concerned here with the more specific arrangements that refer to particular equipment, and it would not normally expect to use the Crown use powers to supply equipment to foreign Governments without giving the rights owner prior notification, which is the key point for my hon. Friend.
      I appreciate that my hon. Friend would prefer to see all that written into the Bill, but we have found it impossible to distinguish in statute between the different types of "arrangements". I must therefore ask my hon. Friend to accept what I have said about the Ministry of Defence not seeking to abuse the unavoidable width of the provision.
      Mr. Julian Brazier: I should repeat the declaration of interest that I made to the Committee. Before I came to the House I worked as a management consultant and several of my clients were in the defence industry. However, I severed all financial ties with them when I was elected to the House.
      I thank my hon. Friend the Minister for the considerable amount of time that both he and his officials have put into the area of Crown user provisions, and I welcome the introduction of new clause 18 and amendment No. 249. The House will recall that my concern with the Crown use provision in clauses 231 to 233, relating to the Crown's rights to seize design rights outside emergency situations, was that such powers accidentally strangle the goose that lays the golden eggs. Companies will invest their own money in design only if they feel that they will benefit from the results. Therefore,

      89
      I welcome new clause 18, which, as my hon. Friend rightly said, provides for a proper level of compensation if the Crown user rights are invoked, and which takes account of the loss of manufacturing profit and of unused manufacturing capacity that would result from the award of an order somewhere else.
      I have two concerns and one question on new clause 18, and also one question on amendment No. 249. My view and the view of the industry, or such parts of it as I have been able to consult since new clause 18 was tabled, is that it provides adequate safeguards for the bulk of the defence industry, but I am concerned about the position of smaller companies which cannot afford to go to court to enjoy the protection that new clause 18 would give.
      In particular, the small company is opened up to two weaknesses, one of which is being threatened: there is nothing to stop an official in a negotiation saying to a company, "If you don't cut your prices a bit further, we will get one of these slapped on you," in the knowledge that the company cannot afford to go to court. The other weakness is the problem of retrospective use. If, by accident, the Ministry should leak information and as a result do millions of pounds' worth of damage to a company, as the law is now drafted, it could retrospectively authorise that leak.
      That is why I have introduced some safeguards in my suggested amendments. The first is in amendment No. 26, which says that a Minister must authorise use of these powers. That means that it will not be done lightly by an official. Secondly, amendment No. 27 imposes a three-month cooling-off period. Both amendments were incorporated in the Defence Contracts Act 1958, which dealt with technical information. The second provision ensures a clean break between a company and the Ministry on one hand and the point at which the powers are invoked on the other. Thus the small company can talk to its Member of Parliament, trade association and so on in the knowledge that that is next best to being able to go to court if the company cannot afford that. In amendments Nos. 28 and 29, the retrospective use of those powers is banned.
      My hon. Friend the Minister more or less covered the other area of concern, which is the extreme width of the foreign defence purposes clause. Let me expand a little on what my hon. Friend said. Basically, there are two types of arrangements or memoranda of understanding between the British Government and foreign Governments. There are general ones that cover a blanket agreement to trade and can be signed at the drop of a hat by the Ministry, without consultation with industry. There are specific ones, which involve a specific agreement to supply a specific type of equipment. My concern, which is embodied in amendment No. 32, is that the Ministry should invoke those powers only in the second case where there is a specific agreement by the Ministry with the foreign power, covering a specific piece of equipment.
      The Minister has assured us that, if powers are to be invoked for foreign defence purposes, the company will be given notice. Notice is worth something, but if the Minister is unable to accept amendment No. 32 I hope that he will go a little further and say that the Ministry will not invoke it without a specific agreement being entered into on that particular equipment.
      If I read new clause 18 correctly, the compensation for which it provides is in addition to the small licence fee to which a company will be entitled under clause 232.I hope that the Minister will confirm that I am right. Amendment
      90
      249 deals with a completely new matter, a change to the Patents Act 1977. That was completely unexpected. Indeed, such a change was not asked for in Committee. It is a bold move and I welcome it. It will encourage companies to invest their money in projects that might lead to the issue of patents, in the full knowledge that they will enjoy the benefit of those patents. It is a good move and I strongly support it.
      I understand the merits of this proposal for future agreements on patents, but I am not sure that the Ministry of Defence's flank is covered regarding past agreements. I hope that the Minister will confirm, either now or in writing, that past agreements are covered and that the Ministry will not have to pay compensation to companies for patent rights for which it has already paid under past agreements.
      Abraham Lincoln, that great statesman, said that the introduction of patents into the American economy added the fuel of interest to the fire of innovation. My hon. Friend has gone to much trouble to meet my requests about design rights and he has taken a very bold step regarding patents. The defence industry will be much healthier for it. More defence companies will be willing to put their money up front. I congratulate him.
      Mr. Frank Doran: I am pleased that the hon. Member for Canterbury (Mr. Brazier) has modified his position since Committee, when he thought that the clause would
      "effectively destroy our armed forces' re-equipment programme in the next century."—[Official Report, Standing Committee E, 16 June 1988, c. 602.]
      My conversion will not be quite so dramatic.
      Mr. Brazier: If the hon. gentleman looks at my words, he will see that I said that the clause unamended would do that. I tabled amendments and the Government have gone a long way towards meeting my criticism.
      Mr. Doran: My conversion will not be quite so dramatic, but I welcome the compensation arrangements in the new clause.
      As for amendments Nos. 14 and 15, clause 231(2) introduces an interesting element. For some years, the Government have had the power to override design right and patents in the interests of defence. They have now introduced the power to override design right for what subsection (2)(c) refers to as "Health Service purposes." The point was made forcibly in Committee that this was an interesting concept for a Conservative Government, and we teased the Minister about the effect, had such a clause been introduced by a Labour Government. It opens up the possibility of local health authorities using the powers. There is nothing to prevent them from doing so. They act as agents of a Government Department and they would be entitled to ignore the design rights of the drugs industry.
      The two amendments deal with other important matters that affect the public interest—the defence of the realm, foreign defence purposes and health service purposes. It is important that the Government should also consider the use of these powers for the purpose of protecting the environment. The Select Committee on Agriculture is to publish a report tomorrow that we understand will be fairly critical of the Government's response to Chernobyl. We may in future be faced with a similar tragedy to that of Chernobyl in this country. The clause is restricted to foreign defence purposes and the

      91
      defence of the realm. It says nothing about civil defence purposes. I hope that the Minister will consider that issue. Purposes to protect the environment and civil defence purposes are two important issues.
      I urge the Minister to let us have his views on that matter. I hope that he will also say how Health Service purposes, which he did not explain properly in Committee because he was slightly embarrassed by the points that were put to him, will work in practice.
      7.45 pm
      Sir Geoffrey Johnson Smith: As I take a keen and active interest in defence matters, I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will accept that the new clause will be welcomed by those who work in the defence industry. I have to declare an interest. I am associated with a subsidiary of Philips which is known as MEL. My interest is wider than that, as is my concern. My hon. Friend knows that considerable apprehension was felt in the defence industry about the possibility of this Bill being passed unamended. We live in a tougher and, rightly, more competitive world for defence equipment. It is only right that money that is wholly funded by defence companies should be treated as set out in the Bill.
      My hon. Friend the Member for Canterbury (Mr. Brazier) expressed other concerns. He shows a deep appreciation of the need for defence and takes an active interest in this country's defence policy. We cannot expect to get everything at one go, but we much appreciate what has already been done.
      Mr. Butcher: The House is indebted to my hon. Friend the Member for Canterbury (Mr. Brazier) for the work that he has done. It is almost unprecedented for a colleague in his position to change so much in so short a period. It involved two, and possibly three, Ministries. I witnessed the way that he went about it, not least in my office, but he was perfectly amenable and agreeable in the way that he put forward his arguments. He impressed two Government Departments simultaneously. I hope, however, that he will not mind if I refer first to amendments Nos. 14 and 15 that deal with civil defence and environmental protection.
      Amendments Nos. 14 and 15 would add environmental protection and civil defence to the purposes for which the Crown use provisions could be activated. These are two important and worthy topics. I do not wish the fact that I shall advise the House to resist the amendments to be taken as decrying their significance. There are other significant areas that are not covered by the powers in clause 231, because defence and Health Service purposes are unique. For example, the soldier in the field needs to be completely familiar with his equipment, especially in difficult circumstances. That means that as far as possible the equipment must be uniform and instantly recognisable. If the new manufacturer cannot manufacture exactly to the old design, the service man may hesitate while working out how to use the equipment. In those vital moments of hesitation under battlefield conditions the battle may be lost. For defence purposes we need to be able to manufacture to an established design.
      Similar considerations apply to the Health Service. Where health, or life and death, is an issue, there can be no compromise on design. The Health Service must have the
      92
      best equipment, whether it is surgical, artificial joint replacements, or whatever. The existence of a design right covering the best equipment must not prevent the health authorities from going for the best. Important as they are, environmental protection and civil defence do not have that ultimate level of immediacy. Defence and Health Service purposes bear directly upon life and liberty in a particularly final manner. In our view, neither environ-mental protection nor civil defence qualify in quite the same way.
      As I have been reminded repeatedly over the past few weeks, the Crown use powers represent a limitation on the rights of designers. We should not seek to limit design right except where it is necessary in the national interest, and that is the case only in defence and the Health Service and that is why the Crown use powers should be limited to those areas.
      I now come to the points raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Canterbury (Mr. Brazier) and endorsed by my hon. Friend the Member for Wealden (Sir G. Johnson Smith). It is appropriate for me to record, as I did earlier, the cogency and enthusiasm of my hon. Friend the Member for Canterbury. He first made his case in Committee and I undertook to write to him and to other members of the Committee with our conclusions. I have done that on the four points he raised in Committee. I dealt with manufacturing profit in my earlier remarks and I shall now deal with the other matters in turn.
      First, on ministerial authorisation, the question whether Crown use powers should only be invoked by a Minister personally, we have been persuaded that only Ministers should invoke those powers. Vigilant hon. Members will have noticed that we have not tabled an amendment on that matter. That is because that very question was dealt with when the Defence Contracts Bill, as it then was, was before the House. The view then was—and nothing has happened since to change it—that the most appropriate way of ensuring that only Ministers exercise the power is an assurance to that effect in the House. My hon. Friend has cited the resulting Act, the Defence Contracts Act 1958 as his precedent, and it would therefore be appropriate for me to deal with the matter in the same way as it was dealt with under that precedent. Therefore, we have decided, and we shall ensure that the powers in clause 231 will be invoked only by a Minister personally, and will not be delegated.
      I now turn to the cooling-off period. I have to say that we cannot accept that in the form proposed by my hon. Friend. Formal invocation of the Crown powers will happen only where there is no alternative. The very urgency of which I spoke earlier will be paramount. A cooling-off period would compromise a vital need for continuous supplies in defence or the Health Service and for that reason I am not able to agree to one. Nevertheless, I appreciate that small firms in particular may be placed at a disadvantage because they are unfamiliar with the ins and outs of Crown use power. To meet that point, we have decided that, as soon as it appears that there is a need to invoke the powers set out in clause 231, steps will be taken to ensure that people concerned are aware of the rights and obligations of both sides. I cannot of course give any commitment on how far in advance of the powers being exercised this will happen, simply because the circumstances will inevitably vary from case to case.
      Nevertheless, the Ministry of Defence will always endeavour to give the firm concern as much notice as

      93
      possible of its intention to use the Crown use powers. I hope that my hon. Friend will accept that assurance, which will mean that everyone will know where they stand so that negotiations can proceed on a fair and sensible basis.
      Returning to my hon. Friend's point on foreign defence, I have already explained why we cannot avoid using the expression in pursuance of an agreement or arrangement. I can only reiterate that there is nothing sinister about the expression. It has been used to define the United Kingdom's dealings in statutes going back to 1949 and earlier. I have also said, and I am happy to repeat, that the Ministry of Defence does not intend to rely on general, non-specific memoranda of understanding. That is my hon. Friend's concern. It intends to consider only those arrangements which relate to specific equipment. It would expect to give rights owners prior notification if it intends to supply equipment to a foreign Government under the Crown use powers.
      That is as far as I wish to go. I am sorry that my hon. Friend has at times—and he would argue, with due cause—seen my hon. Friends in other Ministeries in a particularly bleak light. He will not be surprised if I say that his views are not as justified as he may think, but I am satisfied that they will deal sensibly and responsibly if they ever have cause to use the design right Crown use powers. It is the time-honoured way of things that my hon. Friends at the MOD have not demurred in that draft.
      I shall also say a few words about retrospective authorisation. My noble Friend has already given an assurance in the other place that the Crown use provisions will not be used to legitimise someone who has deliberately infringed design right. I am happy to repeat that assurance today.
      As to the question whether loss manufacturing profit compensation will be in addition to payment fees for the right, the answer is yes. On compensation on manufacturing profits, my hon. Friend asked whether the payment which industry will obtain under the new clauses is additional to the payment industry will be entitled to under clause 232 or the equivalent patent or registered design provision. I am happy to assure him that it will be an additional payment and that is expressly stated in the new clauses.
      Existing patent agreements fall into two categories. Where the MOD has made a settlement with a patentee manufacturer based on the use of a privately owned patent, that manufacturer will be able to renegotiate terms for all use after commencement. Where the MOD places a contract for the development of new equipment, and the contractor makes an invention with public funds, the practice is for the contractor to retain ownership. The MOD retains the right to use the invention free of charge for the services of the Government. That practice is not expected to change.
      I apologise for the length of my reply, but in Committee all members of the Committee brigaded behind my hon. Friend, and the Committee expected such a reply to be forthcoming on Report.
      Question put and agreed to.
      Clause read a Second time and added to the Bill.

    New clause 19

      CROWN USE OF REGISTERED DESIGN: COMPENSATION FOR LOSS OF PROFIT
      '. —(1) In Schedule 1 to the Registered Designs Act 1949 (Crown use), after paragraph 2 insert—
      "compensation for loss of profit.
      2A.—(1) Where Crown use is made of a registered design, the government department concerned shall pay—

      (a) to the registered proprietor, or

      (b) if there is an exclusive licence in force in respect of the design, to the exclusive licensee,

      compensation for any loss resulting from his not being awarded a contract to supply the articles to which the design is applied.
      (2) Compensation is payable only to the extent that such a contract could have been fulfilled from his existing manufacturing capacity; but is payable notwithstanding the existence of circumstances rendering him ineligible for the award of such a contract.
      (3) In determining the loss, regard shall be had to the profit which would have been made on such a contract and to the extent to which any manufacturing capacity was underused.
      (4) No compensation is payable in respect of any failure to secure contracts for the supply of articles to which the design is applied otherwise than for the services of the Crown.
      (5) The amount payable under this paragraph shall, if not agreed between the registered proprietor or licensee and the government department concerned with the approval of the Treasury, be determined by the court on a reference under paragraph 3; and it is in addition to any amount payable under paragraph I or 2 of this Schedule.
      (6) In this paragraph—

      'Crown use', in relation to a design, means the doing of anything by virtue of paragraph 1 which would otherwise be an infringement of the right in the design; and

      'the government department concerned', in relation to such use, means the government department who or on whose authority the act was done.".'.

      (2) In paragraph 3 of that Schedule (reference of disputes as to Crown use), for sub-paragraph (1) substitute—
      "(1) Any dispute as to—

      (a) the exercise by a Government department, or a person authorised by a Government department, of the powers conferred by paragraph 1 of this Schedule,

      (b) terms for the use of a design for the services of the Crown under that paragraph,

      (c) the right of any person to receive any part of a payment made under paragraph 1(3), or

      (d) the right of any person to receive a payment under paragraph 2A,

      may be referred to the court by either party to the dispute.".
      (3) The above amendments apply in relation to any Crown use of a registered design after the commencement of this section, even if the terms for such use were settled before commencement.'.—[Mr. Butcher.]
      Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.

    New clause 22

      COPYRIGHT IN ACTS AND MEASURES
      '(1) Her Majesty is entitled to copyright in every Act of Parliament or Measure of the General Synod of the Church of England.
      (2) The copyright subsists from Royal Assent until the end of the period of 50 years from the end of the calendar year in which Royal Assent was given.
      (3) References in this Part to Crown copyright (except in section 160) include copyright under this section; and, except

      95
      as mentioned above, the provisions of this Part apply in relation to copyright under this section as to other Crown copyright.
      (4) No other copyright, or right in the nature of copyright, subsists in an Act or Measure.'.—[Mr. Butcher.]
      Brought up and read the First time.
      Motion made and Question proposed, That the clause be read a Second time.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss also Government new clause 23, and Government amendments Nos. 253, 254, 256 to 259 and 261 to 264.
      Mr. Blair: I wish to raise just one point. This provision is obviously necessary following the separation of the Crown and parliamentary copyright. I understand that the regime is essentially that Bills will enjoy parliamentary copyright up until Royal Assent or rejection, whereas Acts of Parliament after Royal Assent will be Crown copyright. I understand that that has been done after consultation with officials from both Houses. Has the Minister received any other representations about this?
      Mr. Butcher: We have received no other representations in relation to this matter.
      Question put and agreed to.
      Clause read a Second time and added to the Bill.

    New clause 23

      COPYRIGHT IN PARLIAMENTARY BlLLS
      '.—(1) Copyright in every Bill introduced into Parliament belongs, in accordance with the following provisions, to one or both of the Houses of Parliament.
      (2) Copyright in a public Bill belongs in the first instance to the House into which the Bill is introduced, and after the Bill has been carried to the second House to both Houses jointly, and subsists from the time when the text of the Bill is handed in to the House in which it is introduced.
      (3) Copyright in a private Bill belongs to both Houses jointly and subsists from the time when a copy of the Bill is first deposited in either House.
      (4) Copyright in a personal Bill belongs in the first instance to the House of Lords and after the Bill has been carried to the House of Commons to both Houses jointly, and subsists from the time when it is given a First Reading in the House of Lords.
      (5) Copyright under this section ceases—

      (a) on Royal Assent, or

      (b) if the Bill does not receive Royal Assent, on the withdrawal or rejection of the Bill or the end of the Session:

      Provided that, copyright in a Bill continues to subsist notwithstanding its rejection in any Session by the House of Lords if, by virtue of the Parliament Acts 1911 and 1949, it remains possible for it to be presented for Royal Assent in that Session.
      (6) References in this Part to Parliamentary copyright (except in section 161) include copyright under this section; and, except as mentioned above, the provisions of this Part apply in relation to copyright under this section as to other Parliamentary copyright.
      (7) No other copyright, or right in the nature of copyright, subsists in a Bill after copyright has once subsisted under this section; but without prejudice to the subsequent operation of this section in relation to a Bill which, not having passed in one Session, is reintroduced in a subsequent Session.'.—[Mr. Butcher.]
      Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.

    New clause 24

      USE OF THE TERM "PATENT ATTORNEY": SUPPLEMENTARY PROVISIONS
      '.—(1) The term "patent attorney" may be used in reference to a solicitor, and a firm of solicitors may be described as a firm of "patent attorneys", without any contravention of section 265.
      (2) No offence is committed under the enactments restricting the use of certain expressions in reference to persons not qualified to act as solicitors—

      (a) by the use of the term "patent attorney" in reference to a registered patent agent, or

      (b) by the use of the term "European patent attorney" in reference to a person on the European list.

      (3) The enactments referred to in subsection (2) are section 21 of the Solicitors Act 1974, section 31 of the Solicitors (Scotland) Act 1980 and Article 22 of the Solicitors (Northern Ireland) Order 1976.'.
      Brought up, and read the First time.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following: New clause 15—Authorised persons for purpose of acting as patent agents etc.—
      '(1) A person holding an authorisation granted by the Secretary of State under the provisions of this section is an authorised person for the purpose of carrying on the business of acting as agent for others for the purpose of—

      (a) applying for or obtaining patents, in the United Kingdom or elsewhere, or

      (b) conducting proceedings before the comptroller relating to applications for, or otherwise in connection with, patents.

      (2) An application for authorisation by the Secretary of State may be made by an individual, partnership or body corporate.
      (3) The Secretary of State may make rules:—

      (a) regulating the manner in which any such application shall be made and any authorisation granted, and providing for the withdrawal, termination or suspension of any such authorisation, and

      (b) regulating the competence, professional practice, conduct and discipline of authorised persons.

      (4) Without prejudice to the generality of the preceding subsection, rules under this section shall:—

      (a) prescribe minimum standards of general education that must have been obtained by persons who seek to hold an authorisation,

      (b) prescribe any education or training to be undergone by persons who seek to hold an authorisation,

      (c) require authorised persons to take out and maintain insurance with authorised insurers, and prescribe conditions which an insurance policy must satisfy, and

      (d) provide for a fund to indemnify members of the public against any losses incurred as a result of the advice or actions of authorised persons.

      (5) In subsection (4), "authorised insurers" means a person permitted under the Insurance Companies Act 1982 to carry on:—

      (a) insurance business of class 13 in Schedule 2 to that Act; or

      (b) insurance business of classes 1, 2, 14, 15, 16 and 17 in that Schedule.

      (6) Rules under this section shall be made by statutory instrument which shall be subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament.'.
      Amendment No. 18, in clause 263, page 119, line 10, leave out from beginning to 'carry' in line 11 and insert 'A person shall not'.
      Amendment No. 229, in page 119, line 16, after 'patents', insert
      ', unless he is a registered patent agent, a solicitor, or an authorised person holding an authorisation under the provisions of section [authorised persons for purpose of acting as patent agents etc.]'.
      Amendment No. 20, in page 120, line 1, leave out clause 265, and insert—
      '(1) An individual shall not practise, describe himself, or hold himself out or permit himself to be described or held out as, or under any name, title, addition, or description which states or implies that he is, a patent agent or a patent attorney unless he is a registered patent agent.
      (2) A partnership shall not practise, describe itself or hold itself out or permit itself to be described or held out as, or under any name, title, addition or description which states or implies that it is, a firm of patent agents or patents attorneys unless all the partners are registered patent agents or the partnership satisfies such conditions as may be prescribed for the purposes of this section.
      (3) A body corporate shall not practise, describe itself or hold itself out or permit itself to be described or held out as, or under any name, title, addition or description which states or implies that it is, a firm of patent agents or patent attorneys unless—

      (a) all the directors of the body corporate are registered patent agents or the body corporate satisfies such conditions as may be prescribed for the purposes of this section; or

      (b) in the case of a company which began to carry on business as a patent agent before 17th November 1917, a director or the manager of the company is a registered patent agent and the name of that director or manager is mentioned as being so registered in all professional advertisements, circulars or letters issued by or with the company's consent on which its name appears.

      (4) No individual, partnership, or body corporate shall take or use any name, title, addition or description, nor permit the use of any name, title, addition or description which states or implies that the individual, partnership, or body corporate is authorized by or is in any way connected with the Patent Office.
      (5) This section is not contravened by the use of the term "European patent attorney" or "European patent agent" in the circumstances specified in section 266.
      (6) A person who contravenes this section commits an offence and is liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding level 5 on the standard scale; and proceedings for such an offence may be begun at any time within a year from the date of the offence.'.
      Government amendments Nos. 108, 284, 285, 109 and 286.
      Amendment No. 228, in clause 269, page 123, leave out lines 12 to 16 and insert—

      '(c) a person whose authorisation has been withdrawn, terminated or suspended;".

      Mr. Butcher: New clause 24 and amendments Nos. 284 to 286 concern the use of the expression "patent attorney". At present, this term as such is not in general use in the United Kingdom, although I understand that solicitors specialising in patent matters sometimes refer to themselves as "patent attorneys", particularly when dealing with foreign clients. Patent agents are, however, currently inhibited from using the term by the Solicitors Acts, which make it an offence for an unqualified person to pretend to be a solicitor. It is arguable that the use of "patent attorney" by a non-lawyer would contravene these provisions.
      As far as possible, the Bill has attempted to maintain the status quo on the use of titles by those providing patent services in the United Kingdom. However, since it was felt to be highly likely that the newly-legalised unqualified patent practitioners would, in the absence of a specific prohibition, adopt the term "patent attorney" as an alternative to the restricted title "patent agent" the Bill provides that it is to be an offence for a person who is not
      98
      a registered patent agent to call himself a "patent attorney". The question whether, under the Solicitors Acts, a registered patent agent could do so is left open.
      Following representations made to us by the solicitors' profession, we now realise that that approach fails in its objective of maintaining the status quo. In fact, the balance has shifted significantly away from solicitors by banning them from using the title "patent attorney". There are good reasons for allowing patent agents and solicitors to use the title. Following consultations with the professional bodies involved, that is what we have decided to do. I am pleased to say that both the professions are able to agree to the common-sense approach.
      8 pm
      Mr. Doran: Apparently, word is on the tapes that the Minister will be moving to another job. I congratulate him on that move and I welcome the fact that he is able to complete the Bill. When we realised who was to be his successor, it was a tremendous relief to those of us involved in the Bill that the Minister will be able to see it through.
      There is serious concern about what the Government intend to do. At present, the office of patent agent is well known. It is regulated, there are strict entrance requirements and there is registration, which ensures that unregistered patent agents are an unknown concept in Britain. Obviously, solicitors can act as patent agents. After an Office of Fair Trading inquiry in 1986, the Government seemed to have accepted the recommendation that there should be deregulation in this area also. I will not say that I oppose the concept of deregulation: monopolies are there to be broken. If there was a monopoly of patent agents, I would not expect the Government to sit on their hands once the monopoly had been examined.
      The Government's proposals have caused severe disquiet. There was a serious and long debate on this matter in Committee and I do not propose to rehearse all the details, because I know that we are under pressure of time. However, it is important to draw out one or two points.
      One of the major reasons for breaking up any monopoly would be consumer protection. It is difficult to see that consumers will be protected by this set of proposals. The Bill prohibits the use by individuals or partnerships of the expressions "patent agent" and "patent attorney". However, that will not prevent the spread of what I regard as unscrupulous operators.
      The Minister accepted that we would have a two-tier system where those who could afford it would seek the services of the fully registered and qualified patent agent or attorney and those who could not or did not want to afford them could seek advice in a sort of black market, which would be totally unregulated. The only restriction would be that those who practise in that area would not be entitled to call themselves patent agents. That is totally opposed to the interests of consumers. For that reason, we have tabled new clause 15, which would oblige the Secretary of State to seek in some way to regulate that part of the market.
      We raised an analogy in Committee, and we had the benefit of the experience of my hon. Friend the Member for Great Grimsby (Mr. Mitchell), who had been heavily involved in what we might regard as the deregulation of

      99
      the legal profession. He made a significant contribution to the passing of the Administration of Justice Act 1985, which created the new concept of the licensed conveyancer. I took the trouble to check that Act and it is fascinating to see the difference between what is proposed for patent agents and what the Government did in 1985. For patent agents the only restriction is the inability to use the expression "patent agent". There is nothing to say that analogous descriptions such as "patent expert" could not be used. The Comptroller-General of Patents is given the power to refuse to deal with anyone who transgresses in any way.
      It is important to look at the 1985 Act. There are 26 sections dealing with the regulation, training, licensing and so on of conveyancers. Patents are extremely complicated. I have had 10 years experience of conveyancing in Scotland and I know that patents are a far more complicated area than modern-day conveyancing. Yet there is to be a totally unregulated market. Individuals will be able to pass themselves off as experts and, without any prior condition, qualification, registration, licence or anything of the sort, they will be able to set themselves loose on the public.
      Clause 269 (2) gives the Comptroller-General the power to refuse to deal with certain agents. It gives no redress or compensation for the victims of bad advice or inadequately drafted patents. Often, that will not become known until the damage is done. In Committee we made the point forcibly that there should be a requirement for professional indemnity insurance. The Minister rather glibly dismissed the idea out of hand, on the basis that if anyone wanted to use an unlicensed patent agent, they were entitled to do so. He did not say that it should be necessary to protect the public.
      It should be borne in mind that there are other areas where it would be difficult for people to find out about bad advice and so on, until the damage has been done. For example, what about an inventor who is told by an unlicensed or unregistered patent agent that his invention is not patentable? He may accept that advice, because he has chosen to use that patent agent, but he has no redress because the Government do not seek to provide it. There are no provisions for the payment of compensation or the finding of negligence. That will not even come before the Comptroller-General because he will not be exercising supervision over what goes on in the offices.
      There are serious matters of public concern, which, as I said, were forcibly and fully expressed in Committee. We seek to allay the fears and the general concern by new clause 15, which would require the Secretary of State to regulate the market. The Government have done that forcibly for conveyancers, and there is no reason why they should not do the same in this equally important area.
      Mr. Butcher: The issues raised by the hon. Member for Aberdeen, South (Mr. Doran) were looked at in some detail in Committee. However, the arguments bear further examination, although the hon. Gentleman will be disappointed to know that I am no more persuaded of the strength of his arguments now than I was before.
      We believe that these proposals are unwarranted and burdensome. The Director General of Fair Trading made it clear in his report published in 1986 that restrictions on those wishing to offer patent services have a detrimental
      100
      effect on costs to users of the system. He found in particular that under the present system many small firms and private inventors were being deterred from seeking advice. New clause 15 and other amendments consequential to it would ensure that they would continue to be deterred by the establishment of a new burdensome regulatory procedure.
      We have said that there should continue to be a register and reserved titles that will signal which practitioners have undergone practical and theoretical training and hold a certain qualification. Such practitioners will no doubt continue to offer a high standard of service, but there should also be competition and choice in the provision of patent services.
      We must recognise that those who require patent services are a relatively specialised class of consumer and must surely be credited with sufficient awareness to be able to chose the type of service that they need and can afford. A balance has to be struck between the seriousness of the risks to the consumer and the disadvantages that restrictions entail. Financial risk alone is not a decisive reason for the existence of restrictions. The patents profession is not alone in dealing with complex matters; anyone can offer an architect's services, although not call himself an architect. Anyone can offer legal advice—for example, staff of the citizens advice bureaux do so every day—without being solicitors. The activity and title of accountant are also unrestricted. In such cases, the consumer decides whether to employ a fully qualified practitioner or whether his needs can be met by someone else.
      The new clause and its consequential amendments do not merely seek to restrict entry. They seek also to impose rules on practitioners, including the obligation to insure and to provide for a fund to indemnify against loss. That runs directly contrary to the need to create a more competitive environment by allowing a wider range of services and a reduction in costs to develop in response to consumer demand.
      Restrictions still exist on the provision of conveyancing. The hon. Member for Aberdeen, South emphasised the need to protect the consumer of patent services from the unqualified, and drew comparisons with controls in that respect. As I have said, we recognise that there are risks involved in seeking advice from unqualified patent practitioners, but we must not lose sight of the fact that patent agents are employed by those whose business, to some extent, is that of inventor. Conveyancing services are used by millions of ordinary people who cannot be expected to have an appreciation of the procedures or risks involved in taking unskilled advice. It will be for the individual practitioner to decide what protection he requires against the possibility of giving poor advice. The individuals who are most likely to benefit from the reduction in costs and the wider availability of advice are those who currently receive no advice at all. It must be for them to choose a practitioner and to decide what value to put upon the protection that he is able to offer.
      Mr. Lewis Stevens: Does my hon. Friend agree that many inventors will not necessarily have any great business expertise, but many have an excellent idea? They can easily be dissuaded by an unqualified person from recognising the need for a patent. I should have thought that it is necessary to differentiate much more

      101
      clearly between those who can act on behalf of ordinary people with an idea and those whose advice can be recognised as having professional status.
      Mr. Butcher: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. As he will know, when we considered the issue in other contexts we usually came to the view that competition coming in from the bottom end of the profession normally has a beneficial effect. My hon. Friend talked about that class of potential users who currently may not wish to go straight to a full-blown patent agent. Many people do not get advice. We are saying that there can be a lower tier of people who do not have a formal and detailed qualification to offer advice to that group of people who most often do not seek the advice that we think they should have. We are convinced that, in this respect as in others, the consumer—in this case, the inventor—gets a wider choice and advice is more widely available to those who need it most, very often an individual inventor or a small firm.
      It will come as no surprise to the hon. Member for Aberdeen, South that I am unable to accept amendment No. 20 either. The restrictions in subsection (1) of the proposed new clause are so wide that it would be virtually impossible for anybody who is not a registered patent agent to advertise the fact that patent services were available. Thus the clause would defeat our overall objective of lifting restrictions on who may offer patent services. Similar arguments apply in respect of subsections (2) and (3), which relate to partnerships and companies.
      I now refer briefly to subsection (4). I cannot really see why this provision should exist. It deals with misuse of the title patent office or related words. The subject matter is already covered by section 112 of the Patents Act 1977, which is not affected by anything in this Bill. Admittedly, section 112 is framed in different and slightly narrower terms, but we have never received any representations that it is deficient and ought to be extended in scope.
      For those reasons I must resist amendment Nos. 18, 20, 228 and 229 and new clause 15.
      8.15 pm
      Briefly, amendments Nos. 108 and 109 relate back to amendments made in Committee. They were intended to ensure that the use of words related to the protected titles patent agent and patent attorney would also be caught by the clause. We had in mind expressions such as "patent agency". Since then, we have received representations that the amended clause is still too restricted in scope. For example, it has been put to us that, even though the letters "RPA" after a person's name are the normal abbreviation for registered patent agent, as it now stands the clause would not prohibit the use of those letters by an unregistered person.
      Although we do not accept that a court would necessarily take that view, it does no harm to put the matter beyond doubt, so we are making these amendments so that the clause will refer to expressions rather than just words.
      Mr. Blair: We can briefly deal with this new clause, as we had a full debate in Committee. I endorse what my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen, South (Mr. Doran) said. We are not against ending the monopoly for patent agents. We are simply concerned to ensure that those who have ideas and may hold themselves out to people as patent experts and patent consultants have some minimum qualifications. The Minister drew an analogy between the
      102
      staff of citizens advice bureaux and patent experts giving advice. It seemed to be entirely beside the point. Staff of citizens advice bureaux make it absolutely clear that they are giving an informal service. They do not hold themselves out as experts.
      Yet, under the provisions of the Bill, if the Opposition's new clause is not accepted, someone can say that he or she is a patent expert or patent consultant, but have no qualifications, no training whatsoever, no indemnity insurance, and absolutely no regulations whatsoever covering them in the conduct of their business. That seems to be wrong. A much better analogy is licensed conveyances. There should be an open, competitive market, but it should be subject to basic rules of protection for the consumer. Our new clause 15 gives such rules and protection, and the Government do not. I ask my hon. Friends to support our new clause in the Division Lobby tonight.
      Question put and agreed to.
      Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

    New Clause 15

      AUTHORISED PERSONS FOR PURPOSE OF ACTING AS PATENT AGENTS ETC.
      '(1) A person holding an authorisation granted by the Secretary of State under the provisions of this section is an authorised person for the purpose of carrying on the business of acting as agent for others for the purpose of—

      (a) applying for or obtaining patents, in the United Kingdom or elsewhere, or

      (b) conducting proceedings before the comptroller relating to applications for, or otherwise in connection with, patents.

      (2) An application for authorisation by the Secretary of State may be made by an individual, partnership or body corporate.
      (3) The Secretary of State may make rules:—

      (a) regulating the manner in which any such application shall be made and any authorisation granted, and providing for the withdrawal, termination or suspension of any such authorisation, and

      (b) regulating the competence, professional practice, conduct and discipline of authorised persons.

      (4) Without prejudice to the generality of the preceding subsection, rules under this section shall:—

      (a) prescribe minimum standards of general education that must have been obtained by persons who seek to hold an authorisation,

      (b) prescribe any education or training to be undergone by persons who seek to hold an authorisation,

      (c) require authorised persons to take out and maintain insurance with authorised insurers, and prescribe conditions which an insurance policy must satisfy, and

      (d) provide for a fund to indemnify members of the public against any losses incurred as a result of the advice or actions of authorised persons.

      (5) In subsection (4), "authorised insurers" means a person permitted under the Insurance Companies Act 1982 to carry on:—

      (a) insurance business of class 13 in Schedule 2 to that Act; or

      (b) insurance business of classes 1,2, 14, 15, 16 and 17 in that Schedule.

      (6) Rules under this section shall be made by statutory instrument which shall be subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament.'.—[Mr. Blair.]
      Brought up, and read the First time.
      Motion made and Question put, That the clause be read a Second time:—
      The House divided: Ayes 130, Noes 223.

      Division No. 442]

      [8.18 pm

      AYES

      Allen, Graham

      Illsley, Eric

      Anderson, Donald

      Ingram, Adam

      Archer, Rt Hon Peter

      Janner, Greville

      Ashdown, Paddy

      Kirkwood, Archy

      Ashton, Joe

      Lamond, James

      Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)

      Leighton, Ron

      Barron, Kevin

      Litherland, Robert

      Beckett, Margaret

      Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)

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

      Loyden, Eddie

      Bermingham, Gerald

      McAllion, John

      Bidwell, Sydney

      McAvoy, Thomas

      Blair, Tony

      McKelvey, William

      Boyes, Roland

      McLeish, Henry

      Bradley, Keith

      McWilliam, John

      Bray, Dr Jeremy

      Madden, Max

      Brown, Nicholas (Newcastle E)

      Mahon, Mrs Alice

      Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)

      Marek, Dr John

      Buchan, Norman

      Martin, Michael J. (Springburn)

      Buckley, George J.

      Martlew, Eric

      Caborn, Richard

      Meacher, Michael

      Campbell, Ron (Blyth Valley)

      Meale, Alan

      Campbell-Savours, D. N.

      Michael, Alun

      Clark, Dr David (S Shields)

      Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)

      Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)

      Millan, Rt Hon Bruce

      Clay, Bob

      Mitchell, Austin (G't Grimsby)

      Clwyd, Mrs Ann

      Molyneaux, Rt Hon James

      Cohen, Harry

      Morgan, Rhodri

      Corbett, Robin

      Morley, Elliott

      Cousins, Jim

      Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)

      Crowther, Stan

      Mowlam, Marjorie

      Cryer, Bob

      Mullin, Chris

      Cummings, John

      Murphy, Paul

      Cunliffe, Lawrence

      O'Brien, William

      Darling, Alistair

      Patchett, Terry

      Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)

      Pike, Peter L.

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

      Powell, Ray (Ogmore)

      Dewar, Donald

      Prescott, John

      Dixon, Don

      Quin, Ms Joyce

      Dobson, Frank

      Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn

      Doran, Frank

      Roberts, Allan (Bootle)

      Dunwoody, Hon Mrs Gwyneth

      Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

      Eadie, Alexander

      Rowlands, Ted

      Eastham, Ken

      Sheerman, Barry

      Evans, John (St Helens N)

      Short, Clare

      Ewing, Harry (Falkirk E)

      Skinner, Dennis

      Ewing, Mrs Margaret (Moray)

      Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)

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

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

      Fisher, Mark

      Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)

      Flynn, Paul

      Spearing, Nigel

      Foot, Rt Hon Michael

      Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

      Foster, Derek

      Turner, Dennis

      Fraser, John

      Vaz, Keith

      Galloway, George

      Wall, Pat

      Garrett, Ted (Wallsend)

      Wallace, James

      George, Bruce

      Wardell, Gareth (Gower)

      Godman, Dr Norman A.

      Welsh, Andrew (Angus E)

      Golding, Mrs Llin

      Welsh, Michael (Doncaster N)

      Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

      Wigley, Dafydd

      Grocott, Bruce

      Williams, Rt Hon Alan

      Haynes, Frank

      Williams, Alan W. (Carm'then)

      Hinchliffe, David

      Wilson, Brian

      Hogg, N. (C'nauld & Kilsyth)

      Winnick, David

      Hoyle, Doug

      Worthington, Tony

      Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

      Hughes, Roy (Newport E)

      Tellers for the Ayes:

      Hughes, Sean (Knowsley S)

      Mr. Allen McKay and Mr. Robert N. Wareing.

      Hughes, Simon (Southwark)

      NOES

      Alexander, Richard

      Atkinson, David

      Alison, Rt Hon Michael

      Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)

      Amess, David

      Baldry, Tony

      Arbuthnot, James

      Banks, Robert (Harrogate)

      Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

      Batiste, Spencer

      Arnold, Tom (Hazel Grove)

      Beaumont-Dark, Anthony

      Ashby, David

      Bellingham, Henry

      Aspinwall, Jack

      Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)

      Atkins, Robert

      Benyon, W.

      104

      Bevan, David Gilroy

      Heathcoat-Amory, David

      Biggs-Davison, Sir John

      Heddle, John

      Blackburn, Dr John G.

      Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael

      Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

      Hicks, Robert (Cornwall SE)

      Boswell, Tim

      Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.

      Bottomley, Peter

      Hill, James

      Bowden, A (Brighton K'pto'n)

      Hind, Kenneth

      Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)

      Howard, Michael

      Bowis, John

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

      Braine, Rt Hon Sir Bernard

      Howarth, G. (Cannock & B'wd)

      Brandon-Bravo, Martin

      Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

      Brazier, Julian

      Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)

      Bright, Graham

      Hunt, David (Wirral W)

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

      Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)

      Browne, John (Winchester)

      Hunter, Andrew

      Bruce, Ian (Dorset South)

      Irvine, Michael

      Buck, Sir Antony

      Irving, Charles

      Budgen, Nicholas

      Jack, Michael

      Burt, Alistair

      Janman, Tim

      Butcher, John

      Jessel, Toby

      Butler, Chris

      Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey

      Butterfill, John

      Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

      Carlisle, John, (Luton N)

      Jones, Robert B (Herts W)

      Carrington, Matthew

      Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine

      Carttiss, Michael

      King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)

      Channon, Rt Hon Paul

      Knapman, Roger

      Chapman, Sydney

      Knight, Greg (Derby North)

      Chope, Christopher

      Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston)

      Churchill, Mr

      Knowles, Michael

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

      Knox, David

      Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)

      Lang, Ian

      Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

      Latham, Michael

      Cope, Rt Hon John

      Lawrence, Ivan

      Couchman, James

      Lee, John (Pendle)

      Cran, James

      Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark

      Currie, Mrs Edwina

      Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)

      Curry, David

      Lightbown, David

      Day, Stephen

      Lilley, Peter

      Devlin, Tim

      Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)

      Dickens, Geoffrey

      Lord, Michael

      Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

      Lyell, Sir Nicholas

      Dover, Den

      McCrindle, Robert

      Durant, Tony

      Macfarlane, Sir Neil

      Evans, David (Welwyn Hatf'd)

      MacKay, Andrew (E Berkshire)

      Fallon, Michael

      McLoughlin, Patrick

      Favell, Tony

      McNair-Wilson, Sir Michael

      Fenner, Dame Peggy

      McNair-Wilson, P. (New Forest)

      Fishburn, Dudley

      Major, Rt Hon John

      Fookes, Miss Janet

      Malins, Humfrey

      Forman, Nigel

      Mans, Keith

      Forth, Eric

      Maples, John

      Fox, Sir Marcus

      Marshall, John (Hendon S)

      Franks, Cecil

      Marshall, Michael (Arundel)

      Freeman, Roger

      Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

      French, Douglas

      Maude, Hon Francis

      Fry, Peter

      Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin

      Gale, Roger

      Meyer, Sir Anthony

      Gardiner, George

      Miller, Sir Hal

      Garel-Jones, Tristan

      Mills, Iain

      Gill, Christopher

      Miscampbell, Norman

      Goodlad, Alastair

      Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

      Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

      Moate, Roger

      Gorman, Mrs Teresa

      Monro, Sir Hector

      Gow, Ian

      Montgomery, Sir Fergus

      Gower, Sir Raymond

      Morris, M (N'hampton S)

      Greenway, John (Ryedale)

      Morrison, Sir Charles

      Gregory, Conal

      Morrison, Rt Hon P (Chester)

      Griffiths, Sir Eldon (Bury St E')

      Moss, Malcolm

      Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)

      Moynihan, Hon Colin

      Ground, Patrick

      Mudd, David

      Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

      Neale, Gerrard

      Hanley, Jeremy

      Neubert, Michael

      Hannam, John

      Newton, Rt Hon Tony

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

      Nicholls, Patrick

      Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn)

      Nicholson, David (Taunton)

      Harris, David

      Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)

      Haselhurst, Alan

      Onslow, Rt Hon Cranley

      Hawkins, Christopher

      Page, Richard

      Hayes, Jerry

      Paice, James

      Hayward, Robert

      Patnick, Irvine

      105

      Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

      Stern, Michael

      Porter, Barry (Wirral S)

      Stewart, Andy (Sherwood)

      Porter, David (Waveney)

      Sumberg, David

      Portillo, Michael

      Summerson, Hugo

      Powell, William (Corby)

      Taylor, John M (Solihull)

      Price, Sir David

      Thompson, D. (Calder Valley)

      Rathbone, Tim

      Thorne, Neil

      Redwood, John

      Thurnham, Peter

      Riddick, Graham

      Townend, John (Bridlington)

      Ridley, Rt Hon Nicholas

      Tredinnick, David

      Ridsdale, Sir Julian

      Waddington, Rt Hon David

      Roberts, Wyn (Conwy)

      Ward, John

      Rost, Peter

      Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

      Ryder, Richard

      Watts, John

      Sackville, Hon Tom

      Wheeler, John

      Shaw, David (Dover)

      Widdecombe, Ann

      Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)

      Winterton, Mrs Ann

      Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')

      Winterton, Nicholas

      Shelton, William (Streatham)

      Wood, Timothy

      Shephard, Mrs G. (Norfolk SW)

      Woodcock, Mike

      Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

      Sims, Roger

      Tellers for the Noes:

      Skeet, Sir Trevor

      Mr. Stephen Dorrell and Mr. David Maclean.

      Speller, Tony

      Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

      Question accordingly negatived.

    New clausc 20

      RECORDINGS OF FOLKSONGS
      '.—(1) A sound recording of a performance of a song may be made, for the purpose of including it in an archive maintained by a designated body, without infringing any copyright in the words as a literary work or in the accompanying musical work, provided the conditions in subsection (2) below are met.
      (2) The conditions are that—

      (a) the words are unpublished and of unknown authorship at the time the recording is made,

      (b) the marking of the recording does not infringe any other copyright, and

      (c) its making is not prohibited by any performer.

      (3) Copies of a sound recording made in reliance on subsection (1) and included in an archive maintained by a designated body may, if the prescribed conditions are met, be made and supplied by the archivist without infringing copyright in the recording or the works included in it.
      (4) The prescribed conditions shall include the following—

      (a) that copies are only supplied to persons satisfying the archivist that they require them for purposes of research or private study and will not use them for any other purpose, and

      (b) that no person is furnished with more than one copy of the same recording.

      (5) In this section—

      (a) "designated" means designated for the purposes of this section by order of the Secretary of State, who shall not designate a body unless satisfied that it is not established or conducted for profit,

      (b) "prescribed" means prescribed for the purposes of this section by order of the Secretary of State, and

      (c) references to the archivist include a person acting on his behalf.

      (6) An order under this section shall be made by statutory instrument which shall be subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament.—[Mr. Butcher.]
      Brought up, and read the First time.
      8.30 pm
      Mr. Norman Buchan: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to take the following: New clause 21—Parody in folk material—
      106
      "The publishing of a song in print or a sound recording does not infringe any copyright, where the words of the song are totally or substantially different from the original, the authorship is unknown, and the publishing is in connection with the study or dissemination of contemporary folk-lore.'.
      Amendment No. 252, in page 152, line 1, at end insert—
      'Recordings of folksongs
      6A.—(1) A recording of a performance of a song may be made for the purpose of including it in an archive maintained by a designated body without infringing any of the rights conferred by Part II, provided the conditions in sub-paragraph (2) below are met.
      (2) The conditions are that—

      (a) the words are unpublished and of unknown authorship at the time the recording is made.

      (b) the making of the recording does not infringe any copyright, and

      (c) its making is not prohibited by any performer.

      (3) Copies of a recording made in reliance on sub-paragraph (1) and included in an archive maintained by a designated body may, if the prescribed conditions are met, be made and supplied by the archivist without infringing any of the rights conferred by Part II.
      (4) In this paragraph—

      "designated body" means a body designated for the purposes of section (Recordings of folksongs), and

      "the prescribed conditions" means the conditions prescribed for the purposes of subsection (3) of that section;

      and other expressions used in this paragraph have the same meaning as in that section.'.
      Mr. Buchan: I owe a debt of gratitude to the Department of Trade and Industry. I apologise for not being involved in the Bill at an earlier stage—to some extent I should have been. The response that I received from the Department of Trade and Industry did not go as far as I should have liked, but if the new clause is accepted it will create a modus vivendi for those concerned with copyright.
      I support the case for the individual artist's remuneration and moral rights, whether he be a writer or a musician but we are dealing with material that is or should be in the public domain and which, if it is unamended, may create difficulties if the copyright laws are applied too strictly. I am seeking to create not a loophole but a modus vivendi for serious researchers, serious collectors and, where possible, for the dissemination of information and material to interested and involved people.
      It might be useful to describe the material that will be affected. All folk material is derivative and imitative. Bronson printed 200 tunes for "Barbara Allen". They are all recognisable as Barbara Allen tunes but different variants are equally recognisable as separate variants. No one copyrighted "Barbara Allen" material: it was mentioned as long ago as the 1660s when Pepys heard what he called the "little Scotch ballad of Barbara Allen".
      The problem facing the contemporary collector of such material, or someone who wishes to write about it. as I have, is that since the time of Pepys and all the early collectors—Bishop Percy and others—copyright has been developed. If a man hears a tune now, learns it and writes other words to it, as I and others have done, he faces a problem if the tune is copyrighted. Sometimes the material is such that the dissemination of it, if it were disseminated let alone collected, would not cause the composer much fear. A sea-song from the last war goes as follows:
      "My job is to clean a naval latrine, I'm the man with the plan for the pan that everyone uses."
      Hon. Members might guess that is the beginning of the tune, Beguine the Begin. I do not think that Cole Porter or

      107
      whoever wrote it would be worried that the tune has been published in a book of seamen's songs, some of which are serious and some funny.
      Doctor Ian Russell of the Folk Song Journal, in a paper called "Parody and Performance", found that he would be charged quite a lot of money for a publication that would not raise much. He intended to print the tune with a parody of "Show Me the Way to Go Home" but, because the tune was copyright, he was to be charged.
      How do we cope with the problem of making parodies of tunes that are copyrighted? We argue that parodies are a part of the public domain and of our contemporary heritage. Some of them are funny and some are bawdy, but nevertheless they are a means of repeating what people said. I was reminded of Hamlet talking to the players, when he said:
      "let them be well used; for they are the abstracts and brief chronicles of the time: after your death you were better have had a bad epitaph than their ill report while you live."
      I remember an incident not long ago, which hon. Members may also remember, in which one of the verses went:
      "For there was a Tory and a Ryebuck Red, Fighting out the Cold War in Christine's bed."
      Some hon. Members may recall the incident that it described.
      Parodies are used to comment because it is important to know what people are commenting about. Hon. Members will be aware of the well-known children's song:
      "Now the war is over, Hitler he is dead, He went to Heaven with a pain in his head. The Lord said, 'No, you'll have to go below— There's only room for Elvis and his wee banjo.'"
      Another parody says:
      "Now the war is over, Vaseline's dead."
      I puzzled for some time as to what was meant by vaseline. Of course, Hitler is remembered, but Mussolini is completely forgotten.
      We had to seek means by which material could be disseminated because of the greater consciousness of copyright as a result of this Bill, and the greater importance of the moral rights of the person who does not want his material to be used, and even has the ability to intervene to prevent matters being commented on by its use in another way.
      I suspect that new clause 21 will be opposed. I talked to the copyright bodies and said that as the clause was imperfect I expected that it would be opposed. It sets out what we should like to establish in one form or another so that we can publish a song, whether it be a children's song or a seaman's; where the words of a song are substantially or totally different from the original, when the authorship is unknown and the publication is in connection with the study or dissemination or contemporary folklore.
      I do not think that new clause 21 will be accepted. I recognise that the inclusion of the word "dissemination" will worry the copyright bodies. I hope that they will recognise that when a work such as "Grey Funnel Lines" is published it should become part of the public understanding and within public view.
      I am reminded of an older song, which says:
      "Hark the herald angels sing, Mrs. Simpson's pinched our King."
      I move the new clauses and amendment so that such material can be preserved, remembered and pass into our history.
      Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: I join my hon. Friend the Member for Paisley, South (Mr. Buchan) in supporting the new clauses and the amendment. I apologise to the House for coming rather late to the debate. I was made aware by my wife, who is a member of the Folklore Society, of the concerns about the recording and copyrighting of material.
      I am concerned not only with the folksong and the parody, but with the song, the dance, the folk tale, the traditional play, the urban legend and matters such as herbal remedies, children's rhymes, Xerox jokes that are printed on many copying machines and even graffiti. That is all traditional material, but it belongs to people rather than the individual. The first concern is how far one individual can secure copyright for material simply because he records it.
      Traditional material feeds on what is clearly copyright material. Songs are parodied. A most obvious example is the way in which children use jingles from television advertisements and put new words to them. I suspect that none of the television companies or advertisers would mind in the slightest, although sometimes the jingle becomes fairly derogatory to their product.
      The worry is that, if somebody parodies or uses material in some new form, he may become liable to a charge under copyright law. Because material is in the public domain, it is difficult for anyone to demand a fee for its use. No one will accuse a group of children singing a song in a street of taking the tune for their song from a television jingle, and it is unlikely that anyone will raid a public house where folk singers are performing a song for which they have taken the turn from recently published copyright material and put a parody to it. It is not worth anyone pursuing them at that point, even if the folk singers are being paid a small sum or are taking a collection.
      The problem arises when someone records the material in some form. An example is to be found at party conferences—for Labour it is the Red Review, but I am not sure what the Tory review is called. Those reviews almost always use popular songs and send up various political figures to their tunes. I do not suppose that anyone would chase for the copyright of a tune at that point, but an excerpt may then be shown on television or recorded in some form. It is at that point that people may start to pursue a royalty on the material.
      The importance of the new clause is that it makes it absolutely clear that if people record material either in written or in taped form, they should not be liable; they are the people who would be pursued for a royalty.
      There is a slight question mark in my mind about whether, if there is an academic study, and material is recorded, its nature is changed. That is my reservation.
      I look forward to hearing what the Government have to say. I hope that they will assure use that the Bill will not make it easier for an individual to steal a copyright on material that is in general circulation and that, when people take material in the general public domain, adapt and alter it, and do not normally make any money from it, there will not be restrictions and difficulties for those who wish to record the material either in taped or written form.
      Mr. Butcher: I am pleased to say that the Government are able to go some of the way towards meeting the worries expressed by the hon. Members for Paisley, South (Mr. Buchan) and for Denton and Reddish (Mr. Bennett).

      109
      It appears to be de rigeur to think of a piece of material that may be relevant here. I can only commend an alternative version of the Rubáiyát of Omar Khayyám to this gathering. I especially commend it to parliamentary draftsmen who once every two decades come forward with a Copyright, Designs and Patents Bill. It goes something like this:
      "The moving finger writes and having writ, moves on and writes another bit."
      The difficulty is that in the House we appear to be writing more and more bits with greater and greater frequency, but in this case I believe that our boulder in the avalanche of legislation which some say afflicts the House is important.
      One can argue that, infrequent as these Bills are, we should get them right. It is with that objective in mind that I hope that Opposition Members will confirm that this has been as close as one can get to an exercise in open government by way of open doors, open to ideas, close relationships and advice from officials in the Department of Trade and Industry and hon. Members of all parties. This trio of new clauses and amendments comes into that category, and I believe that, although I can accept two, and have to resist one, they benefit from a free and open exchange of views.
      In this country we have always celebrated events of both national and personal importance in song. From the balladeer of the medieval court to the songs heard today at a rugby match, folk music provides a lively guide to our social development. However, many of our modern folk songs consist of new words being fitted to existing copyright music and that can cause problems for those who want to research and collect folk music.
      I do not think that these problems are as severe as the hon. Member suggested. The Bill already allows fair dealing with musical works for the purposes of research, private study, criticism or review. However, we accept that there is a difficulty in relation to the making of sound recordings of performances of the folk versions of the copyright music.
      8.45 pm
      New clause 20 provides a way round this difficulty. It is a new exception to copyright which, together with amendment No. 252, its corresponding exception in schedule 2, I am happy to accept. The clause will allow recordings of performances of songs to be made for the purpose of inclusion in an archive maintained by a designated body without infringing the copyright in the words or music. This is, however, subject to several conditions which will safeguard the interests of composers, lyricists and performers. The practical effect is that only the copyright in the music is overriden and for a very limited purpose.
      Subsequently, anyone requiring a copy of the recording for the purpose of research and private study will be able to obtain it from the archivist. I believe this is a reasonable exception to copyright that will result in an archive providing a useful insight into our social history.
      Unfortunately, I cannot be so accommodating about new clause 21.
      Mr. Wigley: There is obviously some inspiration behind the wording of new clause 20. Am I right to say that, although the title is "Recordings of folksongs" the
      110
      definition of folk songs is broad? The new clause relates not only to folk songs, but to anything that falls within the definitions that we have here.
      Secondly, will the Minister confirm that the designated bodies will be wide-ranging enough to take in the bodies that exist in Scotland, Wales and Ireland, as well as in England, that involve themselves in those activities?
      Mr. Butcher: I am 90 per cent. sure at this stage that the answer to the hon. Gentleman's second question is yes. I will do my best to discharge an obligation to reply to the hon. Gentleman's first point before I resume my seat. In the interim, I will continue with my observations on new clause 21.
      Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: I understand that suggestions have been made to the Minister about who the designated bodies will be. My only slight reservation is that several of the designated bodies have put together collections which were made by individuals. Those designated bodies would not have such good collections but for the work of individuals in the past. The slight reservation is that there are private individuals who have put together a collection which, in the future, will become a valuable archive. It appears that they are excluded from new clause 20, which is being accepted. Has the Minister any observations on that?
      Mr. Butcher: Again, I will attempt to give the hon. Gentleman satisfaction before we complete this debate. There are several examples of individual collections being incorporated in national archives. That is a trend which we all want to be consolidated and enhanced. I hope that my reply supports what is the universal objective of the House.
      New clause 21 goes far beyond the archival exception that I have just explained. It could seriously affect the legitimate interests of copyright owners. It would allow the publication of books and records of any song, providing that the words were different from the original. There are safeguards, but I do not think that they are adequate. The clause says that the author of the words must be unknown and that the publishing has to be in connection with the study or dissemination of contemporary folklore. That would, however, open the way for the commercial exploitation of music without any control by, or payment to, the owner of copyright in the music. A record company could, for example, claim that it was merely disseminating folklore if it were to become aware of an anonymous set of words having been put to some already popular music, and were to issue a professionally produced sound recording of that version. It would clearly be quite wrong to deny the writer of the original music any say in that.
      While I realise that new clause 21 is motivated by a genuine concern to allow the research and dissemination of folklore, it would take away the basic rights of the copyright owner to an unacceptable degree and would be incompatible with our obligations under the Berne convention.
      New clause 20 and the existing provisions ensure that those genuinely involved in folk music research can collect and maintain archives of such music and can report the results of their research without infringing copyright. To take the exception any further would undermine the legitimate interests of composers and, at this late stage, I regret that I must ask hon. Members not to press new clause 21.

      111
      As regards the definition of "folk song", which was the issue raised by the hon. Member for Caernarfon (Mr. Wigley), there is no definition, because it covers any unpublished anonymous words set to copyright music whether or not it would be called folk song. Therefore there is no need to refer to "folk song" in the clause, because it would not add anything to the identification of what is covered. However, it is useful to refer to folk song as a shorthand in the title of the clause. That title will have no legal effect. It is merely a signpost.
      I hope that hon. Members are satisfied, but I should point out to the whole House that there is a tradition which was established in Committee that hon. Gentlemen who wish to have a question answered immediately are obliged to stand up and make a not-too-lengthy intervention while the answer is prepared.
      Mr. Buchan: In that case, I shall try to oblige the Minister and to give the House a little help. First, I congratulate whoever suddenly produced the definition of folk song as not being amenable to definition. That is absolutely right. My shelves are full of definitions, none of which can totally agree because they all become restrictive. It is rather like the story of Attlee replying to an organisation set up in, of all unlikely folk bodies, the Labour party—which if hon. Members recall, should not set up other organisations. Nobody could define what was meant by an organisation, so he said, "Well, we cannot define an elephant but we can recognise it when it comes through the door." In reply Zilliacus then told the famous story of the plague of rabbits in the Ukraine. All the rabbits poured over the border into Poland and the Polish rabbits said, "What are you running away from?" The other rabbits said, "They have declared a purge on all camels." The Polish rabbits said, "But you are rabbits". The other rabbits replied "Have you tried proving that to the OGPU?" That shows that what is available is always amenable to one's own definition.
      I should like to make two points. First, the Minister has been slightly over-restrictive, which was unfortunate. We have no intention of opening any loopholes, and I do not believe that the new clause would do that. I can understand that, as with the definition of folk song, this definition might seem to open up a loophole, but that is most unlikely. Even in dissemination, if the song had been printed in a particular book about the man who cleaned the latrines, it would not have given Cole Porter a sleepless night. There can be a modus vivendi and the best thing that we can do is to have a chat with the copyright bodies—I intend to do that—to see what will happen.
      Secondly, nothing more pleases some people who write songs than to write a song and then find, as I found recently, that it is being sung as traditional. Although that deprived me of my copyright fees, I was pleased that it passed as traditional—once in a learned book and then on a disc, so in the end I was quite pleased that it happened.
      The classic case is that of a song of the last war, "Those D-day dodgers"—we now know who wrote it—which then became in every other way a folk song. I was in the 8th Army and we all knew the song long before I met the man who wrote it, Hamish Anderson. It contained some beautiful lines about Nancy Astor:
      112
      "Dear Lady Astor …
      England's sweetheart and her pride,
      We think your mouth's too bloody wide."
      That was from the D-Day Dodgers way out in Italy.
      I should now like to make a serious point because I think that the Minister will have collected his thoughts by now. I want to talk about private collectors and their collections in relation to organisations. I hope that we can put our heads together about the organisations, including obviously, the School of Scottish Studies, Cecil Sharp house and the institute in Sheffield. In addition to those bodies, many academic bodies, including most polytechnics and universities, have cultural curricula and institutions of some kind. I hope that all those fall within the scope of the provisions.
      The individual collector and the individual singer is almost always involved. For a long period I could hardly exist because of young people knocking at my door, looking for words and tunes, when the folk song revival was taking place. Similarly, almost all people connected with this would want to involve themselves with those bodies. All that we need to do is to help those wishing to sing or learn such material to associate with one of the bodies.
      The final point I should like to make—unless the Minister is now ready to reply before I come back to withdraw my amendment—
      Mr. Butcher: The position on private collections is that we cannot legislate retrospectively to make those collections legal if they are not legal at the time the recordings were made. However, in many cases, copyright owners will give permission for their music to be dealt with in that way. For the future, private individuals will be able to make recordings without seeking permission in order to put the recordings in an archive. I hope that that answer is helpful to the House.
      I heard what the hon. Gentleman said about future negotiations and about seeking clarification. However, I hope that for the time being the House will be satisfied if I repeat that I am perfectly happy to endorse and support new clause 20 and amendment No. 252. Unfortunately, for the reasons I have given, I cannot support new clause 21. I believe that the House has found a more or less agreeable modus vivendi.
      Mr. Buchan: I will, of course, withdraw new clause 21 partly because I would lose it in any case, but partly because it is imperfect. I hope that, when thanking me for withdrawing it, the Minister will say that he would find it useful if we discussed it with the copyright bodies, and that he might go so far as to say that he hopes that the copyright bodies will have equally open minds when we discuss the kind of modus vivendi. It would help me if the Minister would say so.
      Mr. Butcher: Yes, that would be perfectly feasible. I hope that I have recorded the thanks of the House and my Department for the hon. Gentleman's work. A major constituency has an interest in these issues and if my earlier remarks were not interpreted as an appropriate acknowledgment of the hon. Gentleman's work I apologise to him because it is most certainly acknowledged.
      Question put and agreed to.
      Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

    Clause 6

      BROADCASTS
      Amendments made: No. 33, in page 3, line 31, leave out 'generally'.
      No. 34, in page 3, line 32, at end insert
      'or the person providing the contents of the transmission'.—[Mr. Butter.]

    Clause 7

      CABLE PROGRAMMES
      9 pm
      Miss Emma Nicholson: I beg to move amendment No. 321, in page 4, leave out lines 19 to 26.
      The purpose of my amendment is to ask the Government why they do not intend to provide adequate protection for the part of computer software that is known as interactive or expert or knowledge-based systems. In Committee the Minister said that these were excluded from the protection provided by the clause because such communications were private. I challenge that thinking on three counts and ask the Minister how else he intends to protect this valuable and fast-growing area of computer software work.
      First I shall deal with the question of privacy. If it is accepted that such communications are private—and I do not accept that premise—why should privacy and protection be seen as incompatible? It could be said that correspondence on paper between two people is private, but such letters are protected. The author of a letter holds the copyright and the recipient cannot publish without the author's consent. Where a computer system encodes, transmits and displays a letter, why is that letter excluded from copyright protection when one manually scripted or typewritten on to paper, transported by the Post Office and opened on arrival at its destination has copyright protection?
      Electronic mail cannot be considered to be private because one may walk into any office and see the recipient's mail or messages on screen for all to see. We do not wish to see the exclusion of expert systems. What is an expert system and why does it need protection under this law? An expert system is one in which the system, or rather the database making up the system, is self-modifying in response to external interrogation and data input. This adaptive feature explains another system name—knowledge-based—although of course it is not the system that is knowledgeable but the team of software designers and programmers that has created it.
      What are the practical applications of expert systems and how will those applications be threatened by exclusion from the clause? An easy example is the airline reservation system. Without my amendments, clause 7 would ensure that computer hackers—the catchphrase for unwanted electronic breaking and entering—are not prosecutable under copyright law. If the hacker were a bucket shop operator he could obtain valuable information on the availability of airline seats to be used commercially without investment in the reservation system.
      A medical diagnostic database is available to doctors on-line. That means it is open all the time to communication. It is altered by the data put into the network and those data affect the response to the next
      114
      interrogation. Such a network is at present excluded by clause 7(2)(a) from being a cabled programme service and thus excludes the information being conveyed on the network from the protection given to information conveyed on a licensed cable programme service. Why should it be protected through copyright? The European Green Paper on copyright and the World Intellectual Property Organisation, which is known by the comfort-able name of WIPO, although I am not sure whether it means wipe it on or wipe it off, suggest that copynght is the most suitable law to protect against copying for computer programs. I suggest that as this is recognised by nearly all our trading partners, and as our industry has to operate in the real world, this is the way forward.
      I cannot resist commenting on a powerful article in last Thursday's Financial Times. It suggested that a special legal framework should be created for computer software. However, the European Green Paper published on 1 June says that author's rights and neighbouring rights are the primary means of protecting computer programs, both at the level of Community member states and at international level, and that copyright is the best way of ensuring adequate protection programs against unauthorised reproduction.
      In 1983 the World Intellectual Property Organisation said at a discussion meeting that the special treaty giving sui generis protection, which the organisation had identified in 1979 as the way forward, should no longer be pursued. It said that instead, WIPO and UNESCO, the two bodies responsible for the main international copyright conventions, should study further software copyright protection. The result was that in 1985 its committee of Government experts showed that, by that time, copyright protection for computer software existed in the most industrialised countries and in nearly all the European Community member states. We have now advanced to the possible European Community draft convention which will be at least partially, if not wholly, based on the Bill.
      Perhaps it is because of all these things that through the amendment I ask the Minister to explain the exclusion of expert systems and reassure the computer software industry that the totality of its work is within copyright protection through the Bill.
      Mr. Butcher: I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Torridge and Devon, West (Miss Nicholson) for providing the opportunity for me to make a clarifying statement. I understand that the amendment is intended to ensure that interactive cable services are not excluded from copyright protection. We have put considerable effort into devising a definition of cable programme service in the Bill that will cover the elements of an interactive service, in which sounds, images or other information are conveyed to the user without any modification by him, but which will exclude the elements that are genuinely interactive, in the sense that input from the user modifies what is contained in or sent through the system.
      The reason for that approach is that, while we obviously want the definition to cover all the elements of a database, for example, that are capable of purely passive reception—even though the system may be capable of being used interactively—it would not be right to bring within copyright control those elements that are essentially private communications between a single user of the service and the provider of it.

      115
      Thus, with teleshopping through Prestel, we want to cover the display of catalogue pages, but not the placing of orders. With a medical diagnostic service, we want to cover the sending of information to the user, but not the act of inputting data by the user. I am confident that the definition that we now have in the Bill, which we dealt with at some length in Committee on 12 May, provides the best answer that we can hope for at this stage.
      My hon. Friend is admirably persistent in these matters, so may I say that if I am wrong and the definition, when tested in the real world, turns out to be deficient, we have the possibility of putting matters right through an order under subsection (3). However, to remove subsection (2)(a) from the Bill altogether would bring within the controls of copyright a variety of private communications that should remain free of them. I must therefore ask my hon. Friend to withdraw the amendment in the knowledge that she will at least have an insurance policy.
      Miss Emma Nicholson: With that assurance from the Minister, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
      Amendment, by leave withdrawn.
      Amendments made: No. 35, in page 4, line 23, leave out 'material' and insert 'information".
      No 36, in page 4, line 32, leave out from 'for' to 'and' in line 33 and insert
      'purposes internal to the running of the business and not by way of rendering a service or providing amenities for others,'.—[Mr. Butcher.]
      Mr. Page: I beg to move amendment No 265, in page 5, line 4 leave out
      'premises run as a business' and insert 'any premises'.
      I am moving the amendment in the unavoidable absence of my hon. Friend the Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Smith), and I do so for the purposes of clarity. The amendment makes it clear that cable services operated as part of the amenities provided for the residents or inmates of any premises are not exempt from the Bill, regardless of whether the premises are run as a business—for example, a private apartment block—or are publicly funded—for example, prisons or hospitals. No distinction should be made between the different premises that use cable services. The amendment is self-explanatory, and I look forward to the Minister's reply.
      Mr. Butcher: The amendment would bring within the definition of "cable programme service" a closed-circuit cable system operated as part of the amenities for residents and inmates of the premises that are not run as a business. My hon. Friend gave the obvious example of a cable system in a public sector hospital or a prison.
      I am sorry to have to disappoint my hon. Friend, but I have to say that the amendment is not acceptable to the Government. We do not consider that a cable system in the special circumstances of a hospital or a prison, to take the examples to which I referred, can be put on the same footing as a cable programme service offered to the public in general.
      The inmates of both hospitals and prisons have one thing in common: they are not there by choice. If they watch videos on an internal cable system, it is for the most part a straightforward substitute for watching a video recording or television broadcast at home, which
      116
      circumstances have deprived them of the opportunity to do. In prisons, particularly, there are security reasons for preferring to show videos on a closed-circuit system rather than by the traditional use of television sets and video recorders.
      We accept that in premises run for profit, a closed-circuit cable system may exploit copyright material in a way which will result in financial benefit to the operator. For that reason it is right that such systems should be subject to the controls of copyright, and that goes as much for a hospital run for profit as for any other kind of premises.
      In non-commercial premises, cable systems will generally, as I have said, be a substitute for domestic television or cable reception. It is therefore right that they should be no more caught by copyright law than is watching a television at home. If, in the future, it can be shown that this exception is being abused and the interests of copyright owners unfairly damaged, the exception could, if necessary, be amended by an order under clause 7(3).
      In common with my hon. Friend the Member for Torridge and Devon, West (Miss Nicholson), my hon. Friend the Member for Hertfordshire, South-West (Mr. Page) also has a fall-back position and insurance policy. In the light of what I have said, I hope that he will be willing to withdraw his amendment.
      Mr. Page: I was unaware that prisoners in Her Majesty's prisons were forced to watch videos and various programmes that come through cable services. In view of my hon. Friend's startling revelations, I am forced to withdraw my amendment.
      I am happy to note that under subsection (3) there is opportunity for an order to be introduced if it is discovered that prison inmates can watch various programmes voluntarily.
      I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
      Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

    Clause 11

      FIRST OWNERSHIP OF COPYRIGHT
      Mr. Austin Mitchell: I beg to move amendment No. 3, in page 6, line 22, at end insert
      'except that where a literary, dramatic or artistic work is made by the author in the course of his employment by the proprietor of a newspaper, magazine, or similar periodical under a contract of employment, or apprenticeship, and is so made for the purpose of publication in a newspaper, magazine or similar periodical, the said proprietor shall be entitled to the copyright in the work in so far as the copyright relates to publication of the work in any newspaper, magazine or similar periodical, or to reproduction of the work for the purpose of its being so published; but in all other respects the author shall be entitled to any copyright subsisting in the work.'.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss amendment No. 4, in page 6, leave out lines 20 to 22 and insert—
      '(2) Where a literary, dramatic, or artistic work is made by an employee in the course of his employment, his employer is the first owner of any copyright in the work, subject to:—

      (a) any agreement between the parties or their representatives

      (b) the application of sections 76 to 88 inclusive (Moral Rights).'.

      Mr. Mitchell: I declare an interest as a member of the National Union of Journalists and also as a journalist. Sometimes that word is put in inverted commas when I am so described.
      The amendment is about the balance of power between working journalists and the proprietors of newspapers. We believe that with the unamended clause 11 the Government are shifting that balance of power unjustifiably towards the proprietors. Why the Government are acting thus escapes us, but it must be connected in some way with their general generosity to newspaper proprietors—a generosity which is, in the main, applied to get a press amenable to the Government. We have a press whose only concession to balance is to use slightly less glowing adjectives in their panegyrics about the Prime Minister.
      The press has been larded with honours by this Government—usually in inverse ratio to the quality of the papers. We have had Sir Loin of Lamb, Sir David English, Lord Matthew of Whelks and Lord Stevens. It must be rather frustrating to the Government that they cannot confer a title on Lord Murdoch of Wapping Breasts, Lies and Sex Scandals, simply because he is an Australian.
      The Government want to keep the press sweet and favourable to them. That is the only motive that we can see for shifting the balance of power towards the proprietors and against working journalists. Before clause 11 was introduced, the law was set out in clause 4 of the Copyright Act 1956. That law referred to
      "Where a literary, dramatic or artistic work is made by the author"—
      or photographers, who are also concerned about clause 11—
      "in the course of his employment by the proprietor of a newspaper, magazine or similar periodical under a contract of service or apprenticeship, and is so made for the purpose of publication in a newspaper, magazine or similar periodical"
      In all other respects, copyright was retained by the author.
      The NUJ wanted that original law tightened to restrict the proprietor's rights to staff journalists and to periodicals under his ownership. That tightening of the law would have brought us into line with the legal position as it prevails in most of Europe. However, the Government went the other way and they amended their proposals in the House of Lords to make the proprietor the first owner and to give him unfettered right of exploitation everywhere, including databases, which are becoming increasingly important.
      The journalist's work is creative and should be the intellectual property of the creator. It should not be liable to wholesale exploitation without reward for or acknowledgment of the journalist who created it in the first place. In the act of creation, he brings his skills and abilities to bear and his name is used, all to enhance the sales and revenues for the proprietor. To take away from such people their rights over what they have created robs them of their reputation, skills and efforts and dedicates them all to the greater glory and income of the proprietors. In other words, it creates much the same relationship between journalists and proprietors as existed between serfs and their masters in 19th century Russia. Journalists get slightly higher expenses than were paid to serfs in 19th century Russia, but if their rights over their intellectual property are taken away in this fashion they will operate in the same sort of relationship.
      118
      9.15 pm
      In Committee, the Government rejected all our efforts to enlarge journalists' rights. These amendments seek to retain the dignity accorded them by the Copyright Act 1956. We can see no justifiable reason why the Government should take away the rights conferred in that Act and change them in the way in which they appear in clause 11. Unless we return to the position under the 1956 legislation, journalists will effectively be robbed of all their rights when their intellectual property is used in books, broadcasts and databases. It is essential to allow them to retain their rights over all those uses.
      The Opposition are adopting an essentially conservative role. We are advocating the preservation of the status quo. What is the Government's case for this monstrous, inexplicable and so far unexplained usurpation of journalists' rights? We know that the usurpation is subject to any agreement to the contrary, but surely no group of employed journalists is in a position to negotiate an agreement to the contrary. We propose to redress the balance in a relationship that is inevitably dependent to give journalists a platform on which to stand, by having rights within that relationship over their intellectual property.
      Mr. Foot: Like my hon. Friend the Member for Great Grimsby (Mr. Mitchell), I must declare an interest as a member of the National Union of Journalists, although, like him, I cannot exactly calculate how much my income would be affected if the clause were passed. My hon. Friend put the case so strongly that I believe that it is possible to make this debate a short one.
      The Government and the Minister should be aware of how strong is the feeling of outrage among journalists throughout the country at the Government's proposal. Even at this hour we hope the Government will be prepared to change their mind. I have listened to the Minister for most of the day, although I did not have the special opportunity of hearing him in Committee. He has sought to present himself as being in an appeasing mood. He has accepted opposition amendments and tried to create a perfectly emollient atmosphere. That is the best course for the Government to take, from their point of view, especially as they are trying to get through a Bill of this nature in this time.
      It is quite improper that the Government should have introduced such a major Bill with so many ramifications that affect free speech and the rights of journalists and others in this way. It was wrong to introduce it in another place. Now, in the last week of Parliament, we are landed with a great disability. The possibilities of getting through sensible amendments are greatly diminished by the way in which the Government have done things. They have crammed in a long list of amendments at this stage. Some of them, admittedly, are formal, but it is quite improper for such a vast range of amendments to be pushed through like this. Only last week, on a similar measure—although it was not introduced in the House of Lords—many amendments, new material and major changes had to be forced through the House under a guillotine. We are under great pressure to do the same on this Bill.
      It is wrong for the Government to deal with such matters in that way. As my hon. Friend the Member for Great Grimsby said, why do they not stick to the provisions that have worked already? The 1956 Act has been operating reasonably and people understand it. The

      119
      application of this part of the law of copyright goes back for about 70 years. The Minister said that we have a Copyright Bill about every 20 years and that they arrive with the comet. Perhaps his scientific knowledge is better than his legal knowledge.
      The Government had plenty of time for preparation, negotiations and discussions before the legislation was introduced, yet at the very last moment before Royal Assent we are confronted with a proposal to remove from journalists rights that they have had for at least 20 years and probably a good deal longer. It removes those rights without any effort having been made to discuss the matter with the National Union of Journalists.
      No doubt the Minister will tell us about the negotiations that they had with the Members of the House of Lords. The place is so stuffed with peers who own newspapers that I suppose they did not need to set up a special Committee to examine the Bill. How did those negotiations manage to produce a proposal that is of financial advantage to some peers? What will be the financial advantage—collectively or severally—to those peers? How did they bring pressure on the Government? Did the meetings take place in the same hole in the corner where they cooked up the plan to introduce an entirely new method of ensuring the teaching of religious education in our schools? It is an example of bad government.
      I do not wish to spoil the Minister's temper, especially as he is moving along the stepping stones to higher things or lower things—at any rate, sideways—because he has kept it well during our proceedings. But he should not have allowed such major legislation, altering the rights of journalists and many others, to be introduced in the House of Lords, and he should not have been a party to the House being confronted with such a measure at the fag end of the Session. As a last generous gesture to the House on the Bill, which he has piloted through with such skill, I hope that he will say that he has changed his mind and will accept in its entirety the amendment so ably moved by my hon. Friend the Member for Great Grimsby.
      Mr. Brian Wilson: This is a press baron's clause. Appropriately, it was introduced in the place to which press barons are sent by Tory Governments. It is an appalling example of special pleading and lobbying by an interest group that the clause should have left the House of Lords thus altered, and that the privilege of sitting in that place should have been used by press barons to improve their position in relation to journalists, who are not by and large Members of the House of Lords.
      Like previous Opposition speakers, I must declare an interest as a member of the National Union of Journalists.
      Mr. Buchan: My hon. Friend is a press baron, too.
      Mr. Wilson: My hon. Friends have pointed out that I have a vested interest as a press baron, but that is in only a fairly minor way.
      Mr. Buchan: Not at all in a minor way. If the incidence of the Daily Mirror was as heavy as that of the West Highland Free Press in its own area, it would sell about 15 million.
      Mr. Wilson: It is decent of my hon. Friend to point that out. Copies are available on subscription. I assure the
      120
      House that the journalists whom I employ are more than welcome to their intellectual property, and the last thing that I would want to do would be to profit from their efforts. Hon. Members will gather that I am a philanthropic press baron, in a minor way.
      This is a serious point. The rights of journalists to their intellectual property should be expanded rather than contracted. Increasingly, we live in an age not just of press barons in the old style but of multi-media barons—the same people who own the press increasingly own every other means of communication. They do so in rapidly diminishing numbers. We see the media world being carved up among very few people.
      My hon. Friend the Member for Grimsay—I mean Grimsby—
      Mr. Malcom Bruce: Another Hebridean island.
      Mr. Wilson: I am sorry. Grimsay is in North Uist. My hon. Friend the Member for Great Grimsby (Mr. Mitchell) was wrong when he said that Mr. Murdoch is an Australian. I think that this week he is an American. Doubtless when he gets into satellite, if it suits his purpose, he will become a Martian, which might be more appropriate—
      Mr. Austin Mitchell: An improvement.
      Mr. Wilson: Indeed, it might be an improvement.
      Those are powerful people in our society. It is intolerable that journalists, the people who work for them, should be put at a further disadvantage.
      I do not want to pre-empt what the Minister says because the reply from any self-respecting Opposition Member would be, "Up to a point, Lord Copper!" but in Committee the Minister explained his thinking and said:
      "To retain the provision would be anomalous and would keep newspaper proprietors at a disadvantage compared with other employers".
      To seasoned members of the journalistic profession such as my right hon. Friend the Member for Blaenau Gwent (Mr. Foot), and anyone who has worked in that industry, the idea that legislation should be formulated on the basis that newspaper proprietors are a disadvantaged class in society who have to have special little clauses inserted in the Bill to protect their interests, has a ring of improbability to it.
      We are dealing with a greedy set of interests, like most vested interests who sit along the corridor in the other place, and who can never get enough. They can make special pleading work and having discovered that they can lobby on their own behalf, they do so ruthlessly and interminably. This will not be the end of their demands.
      The National Union of Journalists and others are concerned about the works of the big journalists, the guy with the big name whose work can be paid for by one newspaper, by Murdoch or Maxwell, and so on, which can then be flogged relentlessly around the world on every conceivable means of communication. I should also like to put in a bit of pleading for the small guy, the person who does not receive large amounts of remuneration, who works for a local or provincial paper and who might happen upon the once-in-a-lifetime story. That story would go around the world. If it were a photographer, his pictures would go around the world. But that will not be a break for the journalist or the photographer. For years

      121
      to come it will be yet another source of revenue for the proprietor—the disadvantaged creature whom the Minister is so concerned to protect.
      There is a myth that everybody in journalism is earning a huge salary and raking in large expenses. There is a parallel with professional footballers. Everybody forgets those who are playing in the second, third or fourth divisions. The vast majority of journalists are in that category. To take away the limited rights that journalists enjoy under the 1956 Act and to replace them by the amendment in the Bill, which serves no function other than to extend the tentacles of proprietors and turn journalists into the vassals of proprietors with no independent rights of their own, is intolerable.
      The press needs to be more independent. The rights of journalists must be defended. There is no need for the amendment. To use the Bill as a stick with which to beat journalists is wrong. I hope that the Minister will be able to defend what he is doing on rather better grounds than
      "newspaper proprietors are at a disadvantage compared with other employers".—[Official Report, Standing Committee E, 12 May 1988; c. 82.]
      That is an injustice with which most of us could live.
      9.30 pm
      Mr. Malcolm Bruce: I have to declare an interest as a member of the National Union of Journalists, but I am speaking entirely on my own account.
      The amendment twists the relationship between a journalist and his employer to a wholly unjustifiable extent. The hon. Member for Cunninghame, North (Mr. Wilson) referred to a local reporter hitting on a major story. When the Bill becomes an Act, there will be many such instances. In the past, journalists thought that they would fall foul of their proprietor or employer, so they fought to find out which side he was on. The result was that, rather like the chap in "Local Hero", they spent a large part of their time in telephone boxes making reverse charge telephone calls to the United States and having money put into numbered post office accounts so that their employers would not find out that they were making money. In many cases that was totally legitimate; money was being made out of news and information that the journalists had unearthed, much of it in their own time. Nevetheless, they thought that they would be intimidated, got at or even dismissed if they chose to reveal that fact to their employers, because they would be unable to defend their copyright.
      It might be argued that that is what happens under the law as it stands and the Government are seeking to regularise it, but journalists should be entitled to the copyright of the information that they have procured by means of their own creative ability or talent.
      The Minister will no doubt tell us that if there is a real market for his work, a journalist can write his own contract. That is all very well for a Terry Wogan or a star with an established reputation, but it is not so easy for either an aspiring young reporter or an established reporter who has ability but not star quality. The amendment moved by the hon. Member for Great Grimsby (Mr. Mitchell) is, in a sense, speaking up for middle range and aspiring young journalists against the press barons. I look forward with interest to the Minister's justification of a newspaper owner being given extra rights to defend himself against the vicious assaults of middle-ranking reporters and journalists on his staff.
      122
      Many hon. Members will be aware that, with the particularly severe competition that exists in journalism at the moment, many journalists in employment are forced to sign contracts that reduce their working conditions and pay in their existing posts, and forgo the opportunity to freelance or to sell to interested third parties the benefits of their own work. That is happening under the present law, and it would appear that the Government are anxious to repress still further aspiring young and middle-ranking journalists and prevent them from developing their talents in a constructive and effective way.
      I was not a member of the Committee, and I have not followed the passage of the Bill, but what I have heard makes it sound as if the Government, hiding behind the press barons in the Lords, are trying to ensure that those people have a dominant position over the livelihood of people who, as the hon. Member for Cunninghame, North said, can often find it very difficult to find employment that is not controlled by those press barons.
      If the Minister is anxious to break open a closed shop, it is the owners' and proprietors' closed shop that should be broken open, not that of aspiring and successful middle-ranking journalists. Therefore I am very happy to support the amendments and look forward with interest to hearing how the Minister can possibly justify resisting them.
      Mr. Wigley: I hesitate to follow the eminent litterateur the right hon. Member for Blaenau Gwent (Mr. Foot) and th press baron of the Western Isles, the hon. Member for Cunninghame, North (Mr. Wilson). I do not have an interest to declare and I am not a member of an appropriate union, so it is appropriate to add my support to the amendment.
      I find it difficult to accept that a Government that believe in greater freedom, as they claim, should be putting forward such a proposition, and that they should be using people in a way that they should never be used. The argument is absolutely overwhelming, that if a proprietor has paid a journalist to undertake a job and the journalist has done that job, the proprietor should get the first nibble at the work that has been done, and having had the opportunity of publishing the story, the journalist should have the benefit thereafter. The publication can reflect in the glory that the journalist had written the story for that paper in the first place. That should apply to any creative work, not just to the written word.
      It applies particularly to photographs. If one thinks back to perhaps a happier time in the saga of The Times newspaper, when it used to publish excellent photographs, some of those photographs were worthy objects of art in their own right and the fact that they appeared in The Times first was to the credit of that newspaper, but thereafter they should have stood in the names of the photographers who had the vision and creativity to produce them.
      In Committee, the Minister was decidedly unhappy about four or five parts of the Bill. He never admitted which four or five parts they were, but we know that he was not entirely comfortable with some of the measures that he had to advocate from time to time. I should like to think that this was one of the parts of the Bill about which he was decidedly uncomfortable. Having heard the argument put forward tonight, he should be so much more uncomfortable that he should feel in his heart that, even if he cannot accept the amendments now, the Bill must go

      123
      back to another place with the amendments from this place. If any straightening out can be done, for goodness' sake, in this day and age let us not go back to the time when somebody working in an honest job is treated as a serf by his employer. That will happen under the provisions of the Bill.
      Mr. Butcher: Having heard the arguments of a Scot and of two Welshmen, a south Walean and a north Walean, it is always very hard to resist that combination of Celtic elegance. Unfortunately, this is one occasion on which the word "but" is followed by a word of what Opposition Members would interpret as negativity. Much as I am persuaded of the logic of the earlier part of their arguments listed in the first amendment, I cannot go along with much of what I have heard of the substance of the second amendment. What appears to be happening is that Opposition Members have come to see the wisdom of vesting in the employer the ownership of copyright in a work made by an employee. Therefore, I have no trouble in accepting the principle underlying amendment No. 4. However, I must resist the amendment because it is unnecessary. The Bill as drafted provides all that Opposition Members want.
      Clause 11 (2) provides that, when a work is made by an employee in the course of his employment, his employer is the first owner of copyright. That meets the wish of Opposition Members as expressed in the first part of the amendment. The provisions of subsection (2) are subject to agreement to the contrary. That already provides what paragraph (a) of the amendment seeks. Amendment No. 4 requires that clause 11 be subject to clauses 76 to 88. That does not need to be said. Moral rights are distinct from copyright and the application of those rights is determined by the clauses in question. In particular, clauses 76 and 79 set out cases where the rights apply and clauses 78 and 80 give the circumstances where they do not. Therefore, although I applaud the sentiments expressed in amendment No. 4,I cannot accept it. With the assurance that the Bill as drafted delivers what is required by the amendment, I trust that it will be withdrawn.
      Amendment No. 3 would introduce, with one or two drafting changes, the provisions of section 4(2) of the Copyright Act 1956. That provides for a split ownership of copyright in the case of a work produced by an employee of a newspaper, magazine or similar periodical. The employer is to own copyright for the purposes of publication in newspapers, magazines and periodicals and the author is to own copyright for all other purposes.
      Mr. Doran: The Minister said that we accept the principle that copyright should lie with the employer. As I understand it, that is the present position. The point of amendment No. 4 is that clauses dealing with moral rights are also excluded from employees. Under subsection (2)(b) that would not apply. Therefore, there are significant differences between what we want and what the Minister wants.
      Mr. Butcher: We are consistent in terms of remuneration rights and moral rights. We had an exhaustive debate on that, and obviously I was unable to convince the hon. Gentleman. I should say, en passant, that there have been assertions about special pleading in each of the contributions made. I have not noticed a scale
      124
      of lobbying from the National Union of Journalists that is anything like the scale of lobbying that has occurred on virtually every issue of substance in the Bill. Opposition Members say that we should not indulge in special pleading, and they are not indulging in special pleading for their own purposes. They are saying that journalists, compared with other creative employees, should be set apart and be given rights that are not given to creative people in other industries.
      Before we proceed further, I should make it clear that we are dealing only with journalists, photographers and others who are employed by newspapers. Under the Bill as it stands, the first copyright in a work made by a freelance or commissioned author is vested in the author. He may assign all or part of the copyright to the newspaper or merely license the newspaper to print the work in question. I do not think that anyone seriously objects to that principle. A newspaper wanting to publish an author's work must have his consent, and can acquire as much or as little of the copyright as it needs for those purposes. The freelance author who depends on his work for his livelihood is the owner of copyright in his work, and can use that copyright to negotiate payment.
      The debate on amendment No. 3 is concerned only with employees of newspapers, magazines and similar periodicals. The question before us is, what should be the position of works created by an employee during the course of the employment? The general principle under the 1956 Act, set out in section 4(4), is that the employer is entitled to the copyright, and that principle is re-enacted in clause 11(2).
      That it is right that an employer should own the fruits of his employee's labour seems to me to be a self-evident truth. If I employ a man to use his skills to make a product and provide all the resources that he needs to do it, it is only right that I should own what he has made in my time and at my expense. Opposition Members who tabled the amendment fully accept that basic principle, as is evidenced by amendment No. 4, which vests copyright in the employer.
      9.45 pm
      Had Opposition Members proposed the deletion of subsection (2) and argued that an employer could acquire his employee's copyright contractually, I would have resisted, but I would have recognised that such an amendment would be consistent with their professed concern for the employee's side of the employee-employer relationship. I understand that they have seen the light and have recognised the sense and justice of the principle enshrined in clause 11(2).
      One question remains: why single out employed journalists for special treatment? Why should an employee of a newspaper be better placed than, say, the employee of an advertising agency, a software house or a book publisher? There are numerous industries in which people are employed for the purpose of creating copyright works for their employees, yet it is not suggested that the employee should own copyright. The anomaly is most starkly presented in the case of an employed journalist. If he is employed by a newspaper, he is to own a part of the copyright in his work. If he is employed by a television company, his employer owns all the copyright.
      The most ardent supporter of amendment No. 3 could not deny that it is anomalous, but it must be admitted that the anomaly has been around for 70 years or more. Why

      125
      do away with it now? The answer is that it is not an innocuous anomaly. First, it seems to be wrong in principle to say to newspapers, "You, and you alone of all the many employers of the authors of copyright works, are not to receive the full benefit of your investment in your work force."
      Secondly, there are practical effects that harm newspapers. Hon. Members should consider the case of a television company that sends a crew to some trouble spot—say, the Gulf. The pictures and reports sent back by the staff can be sold by the company to a newspaper to help to recoup some of its investment. But if a newspaper sends a journalist and photographer to the Gulf, it cannot sell the story and pictures to a television company. For those purposes, copyright would be vested in the employees, even though the story had been obtained at the not inconsiderable expense of the employer. That means that different branches of the media are not competing on a equal footage, and that is wrong.
      The anomalous treatment of newspapers also hinders the development and exploitation of databases—another point that was raised by Opposition Members. Under this agreement, a newspaper would have to obtain copyright clearance from its own employees to put the works that they have produced on to a database. Back issues of a newspaper cannot be transferred to microfiche or other more convenient forms of storage, as that involves the consent of the employee. It may be that the employee would consent, but he could seek a high price. Why should the employer pay again for work that he has already paid for?
      The general principle should be that, subject to contrary agreement, the employer owns the copyright in his employee's works. Any exception to that general rule has to be fully justified. An exception to favour newspaper employees may have been justifiable 30 years ago, but it is not so today, in an age when the boundaries between sectors of the media are not clear cut and special treatment can act as an obstacle to the dissemination of information. I must ask the House to reject the amendments.
      The hon. Member for Cunninghame, North (Mr. Wilson) called the clause a piece of special pleading. I must say again that it is for the hon. Gentleman to plead why newspaper employees should be set apart from other categories of creative people.
      Mr. Austin Mitchell: The Minister's speech will not feature among the highlights of his collected Department of Trade and Industry speeches as he moves on. It is as though he made it in Times-speak—that is to say, I could not understand a word of it—rather than Sun-speak, when he could have said, "Rearrange the following words to form a well-known English phrase or expression: Off bludge."—which is essentially what he said. It is inconceivable to suggest that all that we are doing in reality is just to return the legislation to what it has been since 1956.
      The Minister can show no examples of any problems, anomalies or disputes arising from the existing legislation that he is changing. He has produced no argument for the change and had no consultations with the National Union of Journalists—only, apparently, with the press barons. He has not even told us what peculiar quality of intelligence, integrity or dignity in British press barons, as shown in their newspapers, justifies giving them so much greater power over their journalists than the press barons
      126
      of most other countries, who do not have the rights that the Bill provides and which our amendments seek to reduce.
      Our conclusion must be that the Government are on their knees before the press barons. Certainly we intend to bring them to their knees by opposing the clause and voting for our amendments. We want to see the headline in The Sun tomorrow, "Journos Butchered by Soaraway Supermin Before Being Jerked Off'.
      Amendment negatived.
      Amendment proposed: No. 3 in page 6, line 22, at end insert
      'except that where a literary, dramatic or artistic work is made by the author in the course of his employment by the proprietor of a newspaper, magazine or similar periodical under a contract of employment, or apprenticeship, and is so made for the purpose of publication in a newspaper. magazine or similar periodical, the said prioprietor shall be entitled to the copyright in the work in so far as the copyright relates to publication of the work in any newspaper, magazine or similar periodical, or to reproduction of the work for the purpose of its being so published; but in all other respects the author shall be entitled to any copyright subsisting in the work.'—[Mr. Austin Mitchell]
      Question put, That the amendment be made:—
      The House divided: Ayes 117, Noes 221.

      Division No. 443]

      [9.50 pm

      AYES

      Allen, Graham

      George, Bruce

      Anderson, Donald

      Godman, Dr Norman A.

      Ashdown, Paddy

      Golding, Mrs Llin

      Ashton, Joe

      Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

      Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)

      Grocott, Bruce

      Beckett, Margaret

      Hinchliffe, David

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

      Hoyle, Doug

      Bermingham, Gerald

      Hughes, John (Coventry NE)

      Bidwell, Sydney

      Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

      Blair, Tony

      Hughes, Roy (Newport E)

      Boateng, Paul

      Hughes, Sean (Knowsley S)

      Boyes, Roland

      Illsley, Eric

      Bradley, Keith

      Janner, Greville

      Bray, Dr Jeremy

      Kirkwood, Archy

      Brown, Nicholas (Newcastle E)

      Lamond, James

      Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)

      Leighton, Ron

      Buchan, Norman

      Litherland, Robert

      Buckley, George J.

      Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)

      Caborn, Richard

      Loyden, Eddie

      Campbell, Ron (Blyth Valley)

      McAllion, John

      Campbell-Savours, D. N.

      McAvoy, Thomas

      Clark, Dr David (S Shields)

      McKelvey, William

      Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)

      McLeish, Henry

      Clay, Bob

      McWilliam, John

      Clwyd, Mrs Ann

      Madden, Max

      Cousins, Jim

      Mahon, Mrs Alice

      Crowther, Stan

      Marek, Dr John

      Cryer, Bob

      Martin, Michael J. (Springburn)

      Cummings, John

      Martlew, Eric

      Cunliffe, Lawrence

      Meale, Alan

      Darling, Alistair

      Michael, Alun

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

      Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)

      Dewar, Donald

      Millan, Rt Hon Bruce

      Dixon, Don

      Mitchell, Austin (G't Grimsby)

      Doran, Frank

      Molyneaux, Rt Hon James

      Dunwoody, Hon Mrs Gwyneth

      Morgan, Rhodri

      Eadie, Alexander

      Morley, Elliott

      Eastham, Ken

      Mowlam, Marjorie

      Ewing, Harry (Falkirk E)

      Mullin, Chris

      Ewing, Mrs Margaret (Moray)

      Murphy, Paul

      Faulds, Andrew

      Nellist, Dave

      Fisher, Mark

      O'Brien, William

      Flynn, Paul

      Patchett, Terry

      Foot, Rt Hon Michael

      Pike, Peter L.

      Foster, Derek

      Powell, Ray (Ogmore)

      Fraser, John

      Prescott, John

      Galloway, George

      Quin, Ms Joyce

      Garrett, Ted (Wallsend)

      Roberts, Allan (Bootle)

      127

      Rogers, Allan

      Welsh, Andrew (Angus E)

      Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

      Welsh, Michael (Doncaster N)

      Rowlands, Ted

      Wigley, Dafydd

      Short, Clare

      Williams, Alan W. (Carm'then)

      Skinner, Dennis

      Wilson, Brian

      Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)

      Winnick, David

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

      Wise, Mrs Audrey

      Spearing, Nigel

      Worthington, Tony

      Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

      Turner, Dennis

      Tellers for the Ayes:

      Vaz, Keith

      Mr. Allen McKay and Mr. Frank Haynes.

      Wallace, James

      Wardell, Gareth (Gower)

      NOES

      Alexander, Richard

      Evans, David (Welwyn Hatf'd)

      Alison, Rt Hon Michael

      Fallon, Michael

      Amess, David

      Favell, Tony

      Amos, Alan

      Fenner, Dame Peggy

      Arbuthnot, James

      Fishburn, Dudley

      Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

      Fookes, Miss Janet

      Arnold, Tom (Hazel Grove)

      Forman, Nigel

      Ashby, David

      Forth, Eric

      Aspinwall, Jack

      Franks, Cecil

      Atkins, Robert

      Freeman, Roger

      Atkinson, David

      French, Douglas

      Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)

      Fry, Peter

      Baldry, Tony

      Gale, Roger

      Banks, Robert (Harrogate)

      Gardiner, George

      Batiste, Spencer

      Garel-Jones, Tristan

      Beaumont-Dark, Anthony

      Gill, Christopher

      Bellingham, Henry

      Goodhart, Sir Philip

      Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)

      Goodlad, Alastair

      Benyon, W.

      Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

      Bevan, David Gilroy

      Gorman, Mrs Teresa

      Biggs-Davison, Sir John

      Gow, Ian

      Blackburn, Dr John G.

      Gower, Sir Raymond

      Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

      Greenway, John (Ryedale)

      Boswell, Tim

      Gregory, Conal

      Bottomley, Peter

      Griffiths, Sir Eldon (Bury St E')

      Bowden, A (Brighton K'pto'n)

      Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)

      Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)

      Ground, Patrick

      Bowis, John

      Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn

      Braine, Rt Hon Sir Bernard

      Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

      Brandon-Bravo, Martin

      Hanley, Jeremy

      Brazier, Julian

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

      Bright, Graham

      Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn)

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

      Harris, David

      Browne, John (Winchester)

      Haselhurst, Alan

      Bruce, Ian (Dorset South)

      Hawkins, Christopher

      Buck, Sir Antony

      Hayes, Jerry

      Budgen, Nicholas

      Hayward, Robert

      Burt, Alistair

      Heathcoat-Amory, David

      Butcher, John

      Heddle, John

      Butler, Chris

      Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael

      Butterfill, John

      Hicks, Robert (Cornwall SE)

      Carlisle, John, (Luton N)

      Hill, James

      Carrington, Matthew

      Hind, Kenneth

      Carttiss, Michael

      Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)

      Channon, Rt Hon Paul

      Howard, Michael

      Chapman, Sydney

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

      Chope, Christopher

      Howarth, G. (Cannock & B'wd)

      Churchill, Mr

      Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)

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

      Hunt, David (Wirral W)

      Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)

      Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)

      Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)

      Hunter, Andrew

      Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

      Irvine, Michael

      Cope, Rt Hon John

      Irving, Charles

      Couchman, James

      Jack, Michael

      Cran, James

      Janman, Tim

      Currie, Mrs Edwina

      Jessel, Toby

      Curry, David

      Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey

      Day, Stephen

      Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

      Devlin, Tim

      Jones, Robert B (Herts W)

      Dickens, Geoffrey

      King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)

      Dorrell, Stephen

      Knapman, Roger

      Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

      Knight, Greg (Derby North)

      Dover, Den

      Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston)

      Durant, Tony

      Knowles, Michael

      Emery, Sir Peter

      Knox, David

      128

      Lang, Ian

      Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

      Latham, Michael

      Porter, David (Waveney)

      Lawrence, Ivan

      Portillo, Michael

      Lee, John (Pendle)

      Powell, William (Corby)

      Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark

      Price, Sir David

      Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)

      Rathbone, Tim

      Lightbown, David

      Redwood, John

      Lilley, Peter

      Riddick, Graham

      Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)

      Ridley, Rt Hon Nicholas

      Lord, Michael

      Ridsdale, Sir Julian

      Lyell, Sir Nicholas

      Roberts, Wyn (Conwy)

      McCrindle, Robert

      Rost, Peter

      Macfarlane, Sir Neil

      Ryder, Richard

      MacKay, Andrew (E Berkshire)

      Sackville, Hon Tom

      McLoughlin, Patrick

      Shaw, David (Dover)

      McNair-Wilson, Sir Michael

      Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)

      McNair-Wilson, P. (New Forest)

      Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')

      Major, Rt Hon John

      Shelton, William (Streatham)

      Malins, Humfrey

      Shephard, Mrs G. (Norfolk SW)

      Mans, Keith

      Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

      Marshall, John (Hendon S)

      Sims, Roger

      Marshall, Michael (Arundel)

      Skeet, Sir Trevor

      Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

      Speller, Tony

      Maude, Hon Francis

      Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

      Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin

      Stern, Michael

      Meyer, Sir Anthony

      Stewart, Andy (Sherwood)

      Miller, Sir Hal

      Sumberg, David

      Mills, Iain

      Taylor, John M (Solihull)

      Miscampbell, Norman

      Thompson, D. (Calder Valley)

      Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

      Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

      Mitchell, David (Hants NW)

      Thorne, Neil

      Moate, Roger

      Thurnham, Peter

      Monro, Sir Hector

      Townend, John (Bridlington)

      Montgomery, Sir Fergus

      Waddington, Rt Hon David

      Morris, M (N'hampton S)

      Wakeham, Rt Hon John

      Morrison, Sir Charles

      Ward, John

      Moss, Malcolm

      Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

      Mudd, David

      Watts, John

      Neale, Gerrard

      Wheeler, John

      Neubert, Michael

      Widdecombe, Ann

      Newton, Rt Hon Tony

      Wood, Timothy

      Nicholls, Patrick

      Woodcock, Mike

      Nicholson, David (Taunton)

      Yeo, Tim

      Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)

      Onslow, Rt Hon Cranley

      Tellers for the Noes:

      Page, Richard

      Mr. David Maclean and Mr. Kenneth Carlisle.

      Paice, James

      Patnick, Irvine

      Amendment accordingly negatived.

    BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
    Ordered,
    That, at this day's sitting, the Copyright, Designs and Patents Bill [Lords], may be proceeded with, though opposed, until any hour.—[Mr. David Hunt.]

    Clausc 12

      DURATION OF COPYRIGHT IN LITERARY, DRAMATIC, MUSICAL OR ARTISTIC WORKS
      Amendment made: No. 253, in page 7, line 22, leave out 'and 161' and insert
      '(Copyright in Acts and Measures), 161 and (Copyright in Parliamentary Bills)'.—[Mr. Butcher.]

    Clausc 16

      THE ACTS RESTRICTED BY COPYRIGHT IN A WORK
      Amendment made: No. 37, in page 8, line 35, leave out from 'VII' to end of line 36 and insert
      '(provisions with respect to copyright licensing).'.—[Mr. Butcher.]

    Clause 17

      INFRINGEMENT OF COPYRIGHT BY COPYING
      Amendment made: No. 38, in page 8, line 41, at end insert—
      'This includes storing the work in any medium by electronic means.'.—[Mr. Butcher.]

    Clause 18

      INFRINGEMENT BY ISSUE OF COPIES TO THE PUBLIC
      Amendment made: No. 39, in page 9, line 16, leave out 'their importation' and insert
      'any subsequent importation of those copies'.—[Mr. Butcher.]
      Amendment proposed, No. 40, in page 9, line 18, leave out 'hiring' and insert 'rental'.—[Mr. Butcher.]
      Mr. Speaker: With this it will be convenient to take Government amendments Nos. 41, 53, 55 to 57, 59 to 62, 68, 69, 82, 86, 87, 96, 97 and 134.
      Mr. Blair: These amendments deal with the new rental provisions and, in effect, are all based on the deletion of the word "hiring" and the insertion of the word "rental". We had a full debate in Committee when the Government moved a long way towards the position that was being urged on them by hon. Members of all parties. However, it is not right to let the amendment pass without obtaining for the record the Government's explanation of why they are changing the word "hiring" to the word "rental". I shall be grateful if the Minister will reply.
      Mr. Maude: The answer to the hon. Gentleman's query lies someway through this group of amendments, in amendment No. 96, which sets out the new definition of "rental" and states:
      "'rental' means any arrangement under which a copy of a work is made available—

      (a) for payment (in money or money's worth), or

      (b) in the course of a business, as part of services or amenities for which payment is made,

      on terms that it will or may be returned;"
      Put simply, that will cover the sort of circumstances as those obtaining in a hotel which keeps a library of videos for the use of its guests. If no additional charge were made for that service, it would fall outside the Bill as it stands and the copyright owner would have no claim for remuneration. The reality is, however, that the hotel is paid for that service in its basic room charge. We do not think that businesses should be able to make copies available to the public and thus avoid copyright liability by including the cost of quasi-rental operation in the charge for the amenities or services that they provide. This group of amendments remedies that.
      Amendment agreed to.
      Amendment made: No. 41, in page 9, leave out lines 20 to 22.—[Mr. Maude.]

    Clause 24

      SECONDARY INFRINGEMENT: MAKING, IMPORTING, POSSESSING OR DEALING WITH ARTICLE FOR MAKING INFRINGING COPIES
      Mr. Butcher: I beg to move, amendment No. 42, in page 11, line 9, at end insert—
      130
      '(2) Copyright in a work is infringed by a person who without the licence of the copyright owner transmits the work by means of a telecommunications system (otherwise than by broadcasting or inclusion in a cable programme service), knowing or having reason to believe that infringing copies of the work will be made by means of the reception of the transmission in the United Kingdom or elsewhere.'.
      We have now been persuaded that there is a lacuna in the secondary infringement provisions, which this amendment is to fill. The transmission of a work in electronic form by a telecommunications system, which is not a broadcast or cable programme service, will be a secondary infringement if the person transmitting the work knows, or has reason to believe, an infringing copy will be made at the other end.
      Amendment agreed to.

    Clause 29

      RESEARCH AND PRIVATE STUDY
      Mr. Blair: I beg to move amendment No. 310, in page 13, line 10, leave out from 'the' to end of line 1:5 and insert—
      'purpose of—

      (a) private study, and

      (b) research other than commercial research,

      does not infringe any copyright in the work or, in the case of a published edition, in the typographical arrangement'.
      Mr. Speaker: With this it will be convenient to consider the following amendments: No. 304, in page 13, line 22, at end insert—
      '(4) This section does not apply in terms of fair dealing to copies made for commercial research if or to the extent that there is a licensing scheme certified for the purposes of this section under section 137 providing for the grant of licences.'.
      No. 43, in clause 38, page 16, line 43, leave out 'research or private study' and insert
      'private study, or research other than commercial research'.
      No. 305, in page 17, line 5, at end insert—

      '(d) This section does not apply to the supply of copies by a librarian to persons requesting them for commercial research if or to the extent that there is a licensing scheme certified for the purposes of this section under section 137 providing for the grant of licences.'.

      No. 313, in clause 39, page 17, line 13, leave out 'research or private study' and insert
      'private study, or research other than commercial research'.
      No. 306, in page 17, line 21, at end insert—
      '(3) This section does not apply to the supply of copies by a librarian to person requesting them for commercial research if or to the extent that there is a licensing scheme certified for the purposes of this section under section 137 providing for the grant of licences.'.
      Mr. Blair: This group deals with the fair dealing provisions of the Bill. We had a full debate in Committee and I shall be brief in moving what are substantially the same amendments. The Bill provides for copyright protection but it also provides for what is known as a fair dealing exception. Where it is considered that the use of a work, even though in breach of copyright, is none the less fair dealing, the copyright rules do not apply if any infringement is made.
      The question that arises, especially in relation to photocopying, is how wide the fair dealing exceptions will be. The difficulty for the publishing industry arises because, although many people photocopy documents for use in research or private study—and that is plainly fair dealing—most of our large business and commercial establishments have their own research departments where

      131
      photocopying is extensively used and where the circulation of the photocopy will be to several hundreds if not several thousands of people.
      Throughout the passage of the Bill, industry has been saying that, in order to have a proper incentive to invest and to protect its legitimate rights, there must be copyright protection against infringing copying. The problem faced by the publishing industry in relation to photocopying is that where photocopying is done—[Interruption.]
      Mr. Speaker: Order. Hon. Members behind the Bar should come into the Chamber or go outside.
      Mr. Blair: The commercial research establishment of an organisation copies very generally and, effectively, the copyright in a work will be breached. That is what worries the publishing industry. It is difficult to see how the breach of a copyright in such a case lies at all adequately with the fair dealing exception. That summarises the case that has been made in favour of the amendments.
      When this matter was debated in Committee the Minister used a rather curious phrase when forced to the point. I quote from memory but I think I quote him accurately. He said that he was obliged to come down on the side of those who exploit information, and had decided to come down on their side rather on the side of those who had the original copyright in a work. Since our deliberations in Committee, the Government have moved some way towards accepting some of the things that the Opposition have said. For example, in the next group of amendments they have provided for a much tighter definition of what constitutes multiple copying so that such copying will not fit the fair dealing exception.
      If the Government accept—as is implicit in some of their later amendments—that one does not have to choose between those who exploit information and its original authors, they are driven to justify why they are not even becoming more precise and excluding commercial research from the ambit of fair dealing. If they do not, large-scale photocopying for commercial purposes by commercial establishments will continue.
      The trend of developments abroad is much in favour of the type of licensing scheme that the Publishers Association has been mooting. There is a scheme in existence in the United States but there are arguments about how successful it has been. Whatever the situation, it is clear that it has had a significant effect on making people pay attention to the rights of publishers against those who are abusing copyright. We see these amendments as being necessary to do for our publishing industry what other industries are anxious to see in the Bill—proper protection for original creative work. In the light of the amendments that the Government will move, why are they unwilling to include commerical research when it was never the true purpose of the fair dealing exception and when the arguments in favour of our amendments are so strong?
      10.15 pm
      Mr. Gerrard Neale: I also wish to be brief, in view of the remarks of the hon. Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair), particularly as the matter was debated extensively in Committee. If the Minister is unable to accept amendment No. 310, he may consider that my
      132
      amendments are a little less heavy on the Bill. In his charitable feeling towards those who are interested in copyright, the Minister may, as he moves deservedly on to other things, consider the amendments not so much as probing amendments as an invitation to treat.
      As the hon. Member for Sedgefield said, there is a strong feeling in the publishing industry and among those representing copyright interests that those interests have been subordinated to the interests of other industries and commerce. It is felt that it is in the interests of commerce and industry outside the publishing world to have material produced on which they can call for research purposes, so they should be required to pay for it. If they do not pay something for the copying of research material, there is a severe risk that there will be less and less incentive for those who produce and publish research material. I hope that, even at this late stage, the Minister will consider the strong misgivings in parts of the publishing industry and that he may be able to change his mind even now.
      Mr. Eric Martlew: I was pleased when we discussed commercial research and fair dealing in Committee because it was the only part of the legislation that I understood. I learned two things from being in Committee: first, never to volunteer, and secondly, not to be surprised by Government actions. I was surprised that the Government did not take the opportunity to get the Bill right or to clarify the position on commercial research and fair dealing.
      My experience has been in industry. In Committee, the hon. Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Smith) said that when he worked in commerce he would flick through the journals on his desk, find the one that interested him, make a photocopy of it and pass the journal on. I had a better system. When the journal came to my desk, I passed it on to someone else's desk without looking at it.
      As my hon. Friend the Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair) said, the reason why I could do that is that I worked for a large organisation. I knew that somebody in headquarters went through the journals and that if anything appertained to my speciality, it would be photocopied and sent to me. I was a personnel manager and if anything on personnel or training appeared in the journals, the chap at headquarters made 15 copies and sent them off to all the personnel managers in the group. That was how the company "stole" research information. I worked for a good company and I am sure that it would be happy to come to a licensing arrangement, if it were available, to buy particular research. It is a wealthy company and could afford it. Many of the technical journals are not as well off. They are on the borderline and it would be a disaster if they went to the wall.
      I must emphasise my disgust for the lobbying that has been done by some of the major companies. I understand that Shell, BP and ICI have all made representations to the Government and are twisting the Government's arm to change the legislation. That was reported in the Official Report of the Committee proceedings. I also understand that the CBI has made representations. It is a pity that the hon. Member for Beverley (Mr. Cran) is not in the Chamber. He used to be the northern director of the CBI and I used to be a regular attender at his meetings. [HON. MEMBERS: "He is here."] He is beyond the Bar, so he cannot intervene. The CBI was a short-sighted, narrow-minded organisation then and it does not surprise me that it is against giving the publishers their dues.

      133
      Why have the Government changed their mind? The Whitford inquiry recommended that an amendment to the law should be accepted by the Government. The Government accepted that in their Green and White Papers. It was only after an amendment in the other place that the Government decided to change their mind. I have studied what the Minister said in Committee. My hon. Friend the Member for Sedgefield drew the right conclusion about that speech when he said that the Government were on the side of the exploiter—or words to that effect. The Government appear to be prepared to exploit publishers. That does not come as a surprise to me because when I was a young lad an old Socialist told me that the Tories always sided with the exploiter. What does surprise me is the candour with which the Minister expressed that. I would much prefer the Minister to be on the side of the angels and to accept the amendment, which will help small publishing companies against the big organisations. However, the amendment will not hurt those big organisations.
      One scheme to help small companies has already been accepted by the Government and it relates to education and university services. Those institutions are under licence to the Copyright Licensing Agency and pay money to it. I understand that, last year, the Government paid £900,000 to that authority on behalf of those institutions. It appears that we have dual standards. Either the Government should make an amendment to get rid of that payment or they should make private companies pay the same. It is all right to pay public money to the Copyright Licensing Agency, but it does not appear all right to pay private money to that authority. That smells of duplicity and I hope that the Minister will explain that position. I am sure that fair-minded people will wonder why those educational institutions are give such a fair deal.
      My wife is a chartered librarian and is involved in issuing information. I told her that I was intending to speak on a clause that intended to exclude her from giving information to commercial organisations. She was not too pleased about that. It was only after I explained to her that she would not go to prison if caught doing so that she allowed me to come here.
      I do not believe there will be any objection if the Government return to the stance they took before they were got at by big business. In the sense of fairness I hope that the Government will accept the amendment.
      Mr. Rowlands: I underline what my hon. Friend the Member for Carlisle (Mr. Martlew) said. He illustrated the strength of the case for the amendment with his references to educational establishments and the money they pay to the Copyright Licensing Agency.
      We have been lobbied for and against the Government's proposal, formally and informally. For me it is a question whether I lose my British Library friends or my publishing friends. When two sets of friends are recommending contradictory opinions, one must look for a set of principles. Occasionally I try to publish some research material in obscure academic journals. If people wish to have their research work published they can place it in the public domain. That way more and more people read it and the photocopying of that material is a compliment to their research.
      My original instinct was that one should be on the side of the extensive dissemination of information. However, when one realises the way in which some of that research
      134
      is grossly exploited on a commercial scale by vast photocopying of key articles, often published in marginal obscure journals, one realises that there is another side to the argument. That case has been made by the publishers of some of the most marginal journals. Much research would not see the light of day were it not for these technical journals—including the historical ones in which I am interested. Many people who have done research find an outlet and make their reputations through these journals, which are often scientific and technological. Their work would not reach the larger commercial concerns without these organs.
      The Government should think twice about the impact of their proposals on marginal research journals. If no compensation is paid for the mass exploitation of the research in them, their numbers will diminish and the opportunities for young researchers in, say, Welsh history or technology will decline. We have a perfectly reasonable way of handling this problem of large-scale photocopying of commercial research, so I cannot understand the Government shrugging their shoulders and saying they can do nothing about it.
      Much of the Bill is devoted to establishing a copyright licensing system which is designed to deal with the large-scale photocopying of work of potential commercial value. My hon. Friend the Member for Carlisle effectively posed the question of who will be expected to obey the new licensing regulations. The answer is the public sector: libraries and education authorities will be expected to come to licensing arrangements for large-scale photocopying with the publishers and will have to pay under an agreed system.
      Why should not such photocopying by commercial research organisations be put on the same footing as the operation of public libraries and education authorities? Why should not these organisations come to a deal with the publishers through a copyright licensing arrangement, the rules of which are established in many clauses of the Bill? The Minister must justify why a poor education authority such as Mid Glamorgan has to come to a deal and make a contribution to the £1 million for the publishers whereas large-scale organisations that exploit research work published in marginal journals get off scot-free. If the Minister does not answer that, we shall have a case for forcing the amendment to a vote.
      Mr. Butcher: The hon. Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney (Mr. Rowlands) reminded us again that the Bill is not about which lobbyists press us the hardest but about coming down in favour of particular arguments. This debate has been especially excruciating because all the arguments have been finely balanced. As the hon. Gentleman reminded us, too, it comes down in the end to principle and the points that give us basic guidance.
      The amendments fall into two groups. Those in the names of Opposition Members would mean that the fair dealing and library exceptions in clauses 38 and 39 would not be available for commercial research. The amendments in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Cornwall, North (Mr. Neale) do not go quite as far. They would allow copying for commercial research under the exceptions if no certified licensing scheme was in place.
      It is self-evident that a large amount of photocopying takes place in British commerce and industry. Whether it

      135
      is as much as the 1·7 billion copies that have been suggested is neither here nor there; but much copying goes on with no return to the copyright owner.
      The Opposition amendments suggest that the answer is to deprive commercial research of the exceptions to copyright in clauses 29, 38 and 39.I shall not go over the arguments that were made in the Committee, but I maintain that the effect would be suddenly to shut off access to much of the information contained in journals and scientific publications. That would bring our research effort grinding to a halt. The House would find that completely unacceptable, and I do not believe that copyright owners would want us to go that far.
      10.30 pm
      Mr. Blair: That statement is an absurd exaggeration of the position. The amendment would not mean that industry could not copy things. It would simply mean that it could copy them only with the permission of the copyright owner, which is the same position as obtains in copyright throughout the Bill.
      Mr. Butcher: I was trying not to repeat the arguments that we had in Committee. If the exceptions do not apply to commercial research, it means that industry must obtain the consent of the copyright owner for any copying that it may wish to do, however minimal it might be. To seek out the copyright owner for every piece of copying would place an intolerable burden on industry, and if the search was unsuccessful, copying could not take place.
      The amendments of my hon. Friend the Member for Cornwall, North recognise the impracticality of taking commercial research out of the exceptions completely. Amendments Nos. 304 to 306 would mean that the exceptions would continue to apply unless a licensing scheme certified by the Secretary of State were established. That approach has the merit that industry would not be prevented from making copies. Industry could make copies either freely or, if the copyright owners got together to form a licensing scheme, on payment to the copyright owners.
      The central question is whether researchers of whatever sort should be prevented from, or required to pay for, fair dealing in copyright works. If we accept the basic principle underlying the fair dealing exception, I cannot see the justification for denying a researcher the benefit of the exception just because his research is directed to commercial ends. We do not want to discourage any research, least of all that which will benefit the economy. We wish to encourage research.
      But that does not mean that because copying is for research purposes, it should be permitted without constraint. That is not the case now, nor will it be under clause 29. Copying beyond the limits of fair dealing is infringement if done without the licence of the copyright owner. That is true for private research, for pure academic research and for commercial research.
      Copying for commercial research is either fair dealing or it is not. Copying that is not fair dealing must be paid for under the present law, and the Bill preserves that. The amendments in the next group will help to define more clearly what is, and what is not, permissible.
      For similar reasons, I am not persuaded that industry should be deprived, either wholly or in part, of the
      136
      exceptions in clauses 38 and 39. It is accepted that libraries should be able to copy within defined limits. The amendments to clauses 38 and 39 raise again the practical problems that librarians saw about how they could distinguish between different types of research. In this context the efficiency or otherwise of licensing schemes is relevant. Even the most streamlined scheme will add burdens to the already stretched resources of libraries.
      I cannot accept the amendments, for the same reasons as I rejected them in Committee. They would hamper the country's research effort. Amendments Nos. 310, 312 and 313 would make illegal what is now permitted and could mean that either industry stopped using photocopiers or was placed on the wrong side of the law. Amendments Nos. 304 to 306 would require industry to pay for something to which it is presently entitled—hardly an encouragement for research. Industry would have to pay the licence fee and carry the cost of administration of schemes which, even on a sampling basis, would involve record-keeping, staff training and so on. There would also be a burden on the library system which is best avoided.
      As I said in Committee, whether the copyright interests wish to offer industry licensing schemes in respect of copying that is not fair dealing is up to them. Industry has no legitimate grounds for complaint about having to pay for copying that is not fair dealing. Although industry should not be singled out for special adverse treatment, it should not expect any sympathy for special privileges which would weaken the position of copyright owners.
      I hope that hon. Members feel able not to press their amendments.
      Mr. Blair: I apologise to the Minister for the fact that in my desire to keep up with what is happening to the Bill I omitted to congratulate him on his new appointment. He has handled the Bill with considerable sensitivity in many areas. We are sorry to lose him from the Department of Trade and Industry, but I am sure that his successor will try to live up to the high standard that he has set.
      The fallacy of the Minister's line of argument is that the whole purpose of fair dealing is what the term implies—to allow dealings with copyright, though strictly in breach of copyright, where it is fair to do so. To treat photocopying for commercial ends in a different way from photocopying for private research or study is wrong in principle. Commercial companies claim the privilege of copyright for themselves in many other cases.
      The problem is made all the more acute by the fact that educational establishments will be subjected to a licensing scheme. They will pay about £1 million a year to use copyright material. The Minister resisted our amendments, but a licensing scheme is already in existence for educational establishments. It is bizarre that large companies such as BP, ICI and Shell should be able to use commercial research and pay no money for photocopying when schools have to do so. The Minister has not answered that point.
      I do not intend to press the amendment to a Division, but the Minister will have to keep a careful watch. In principle, the practice is wrong. Many of industry's arguments against our amendments are the ones that

      137
      they have used strenuously on other parts of the Bill. It is not right that publishers should be subjected to punishment for breach of copyright when that
      138
      punishment does not apply to anybody else. There are clear anomalies. The Minister has not addressed them adequately.
      Amendment negatived.
      Mr. Butcher: I beg to move amendment No. 238, in page 13, line 16, leave out subsections (3) and (4) and insert—
      '(3) Copying by a person other than the researcher or student himself is not fair dealing if—

      (a) in the case of a librarian, or a person acting on behalf of a librarian, he does anything which regulations under section 40 would not permit to be done under section 38 or 39 (articles or parts of published works: restrictions on multiple copies of same material), or

      (b) in any other case, the person doing the copying knows or has reason to believe that it will result in copies of substantially the same material being provided to more than one person.'.

      Mr. Speaker: With this, it will be convenient to consider the following: Amendment (a) to amendment No. 238, in line 9, at end insert
      'at substantially the same time and for substantially the same purpose.'
      No. 311, in page 13, line 18, at end insert—
      '(3A) Subsection (3) shall not permit any person to make at substantially the same time or for substantially the same purpose more than one copy of or from substantially the same work, or to provide systematic services for the making of copies of or from copyright works, for another person.'.
      Mr. Butcher: A similar amendment was moved in Committee. We were asked to define cases of multiple copying that are not regarded as fair dealing. We have tried to reflect the view then expressed that we should table an amendment that provides an appropriate definition.
      I should also mention that the Government are happy with the amendment of my hon. Friend the Member for Battersea (Mr. Bowis).
      Mr. Blair: When we are given what appears to be a gift it would be strange to be churlish about it, and I do not intend to be churlish. However, we need to be told what the Government's amendment implies. Any form of multiple copying would, I understand, be excluded from fair dealing. The amendment ensures that nobody will be allowed to take more than one copy for distribution to others, which is what happens in the case of commercial research. If that is right, will the Minister tell us exactly where that leaves commercial research?
      When we were discussing earlier amendments, he was asking why on earth commercial research should not be allowed without any hindrance, without the payment of any money and without it being a breach of copyright. I find the amendment slightly curious, and I have to pause before accepting it, because it appears to be saying that multiple copying is a breach of copyright and is not fair dealing. I find it difficult to put together the amendment and the position the Minister was adopting in the previous clause. That is why it is right to ask at least for an explanation.
      Mr. Butcher: In the interests of making progress, I may have glossed over a point on which the hon. Gentleman wished to have clarification. I shall set his mind at rest. The amendment reflects a mutual concern. It seeks to define cases of multiple copying which are not regarded as fair dealing.
      Clause 29 provides that fair dealing for purposes of research or private study does not constitute an infringement of copyright. Subsection (3) was included in the Bill to make it explicit that a student could avail
      140
      himself of the fair dealing exception even if he did not do the copying personally. We believe that to be the existing law but this statement on the face of the Bill caused some alarm, particularly among publishers. They were concerned that this could lead to systematic multiple copying—that is the key phrase—where a class of students could ask a librarian to make 30 copies of, say, a learned article and each would then rely on his own individual fair dealing exception.
      As far as library copying is concerned, clause 40 already imposes restrictions on multiple copies of the same material, and subsection (4) was added to clause 29 so that those restrictions are read over to fair dealing. But, of course, librarians are not the only ones to copy on behalf of others. Copy shops do so. Industry does much in-house copying. Amendment No. 238 therefore extends the principle of clause 29(4) to the general case.
      Since tabling amendment No. 238, we have had the benefit of seeing my hon. Friend's amendment (a), and in the light of this we have concluded that our original wording is rather too broad. There will be many occasions where someone copying a particular item will have reason to believe that someone else will also want a copy of it some time in the future. However, it should be possible to make a copy under this clause if there is no immediate prospect of further copying taking place. For that reason I am happy to accept my hon. Friend's amendment to my amendment.
      This brings my amendment closely into line with the existing provisions in clause 40 governing multiple copying in libraries, and with the first part of amendment No. 311 in the names of hon. Gentlemen opposite. I cannot, however, accept the remainder of the wording of that amendment since the concept of systematic services for the making of copies is extremely broad and vague. It could well be that this provision would make the systematic supply of photocopiers an infringement of copyright and this would clearly be absurd.
      Mr. Blair: I take the Minister's point about drafting, but it is not the drafting that concerns me. Perhaps if I put a specific case to him it may help elucidate the matter. If someone within a company's research department decided to photocopy a particular article and circulate it among 50, 100 or 1,000 people, would that be fair dealing or would that be excluded from fair dealing under the provisions?
      Mr. Butcher: That is an example of the systematic and multiple copying which is not fair dealing.
      In conclusion, I believe that my amendment, as amended by my hon. Friend, provides what is needed in this area. As a result of it, the hand of the copyright interests will be strengthened in negotiations for licences for copying which is not fair dealing. I hope that Opposition Members will not move their amendment 311 in the light of my remarks.
      Mr. John Bowis: I beg to move amendment (a) to the proposed amendment, at end insert
      'at substantially the same time and for substantially the same purpose.'
      I am grateful for the opportunity to move amendment (a) and I am grateful to my hon. Friend for accepting it. It is slightly unusual to wait so long to speak in the debate and then to have one's amendment accepted. I am doubly grateful to my hon. Friend.

      141
      I have been seeking to strike a sensible balance between the interests of education and the interests of copyright ownership and to stop some of the abuses that appear to be possible. Multiple copying and systematic single copying have been referred to in that context. I had in mind to bring the academic world into line with librarians so that academic books that are not readily available from libraries could be copied for students. Without further debate or discussion I commend my amendment to the House.
      10.45 pm
      Mr. Rowlands: We are a little unclear as to what the Government are doing in the amendments. We were somewhat relieved when the Minister promptly replied to my hon. Friend the Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair) saying that multiple copying inside a commercial concern is not fair dealing. That was a clear statement that we will happily bag and take away.
      Amendment No. 238 refers to
      "A librarian, or a person acting on behalf of a librarian".
      It then refers us to clauses 38 to 40. What is the Minister trying to do? Is he saying that if a librarian or a person acting on behalf of a librarian does multiple copying, he or she is breaching the fair dealing provision? I hope that we can obtain that clear statement from the Minister.
      I want to know how this provision will be enforced. We went through all the problems when education authorities were involved. Eventually a court case arose and we moved to a licensing arrangement. The logic of much of what the Government amendments do would to be have some sort of licensing system sooner or later so that everybody knows exactly where they stand. We would like to know where we stand at the moment.
      Mr. Butcher: The answer to the question asked by the hon. Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney (Mr. Rowlands) is that librarians will infringe if they make multiple copies.
      Mr. Blair: In the light of what the Minister has said, I am content not to move amendment No. 311.I am grateful to the Minister for the clear reply he gave in that in a commercial establishment, making multiple copies of a particular article or piece of material is not fair dealing and is an infringment of copyright.
      Amendment (a) agreed to.
      Amendment No 238, as amended, agreed to.

    Clause 30

      CRITICISM, REVIEW AND NEWS REPORTING
      Amendmentproposed: No. 43, in page 13, line 25, leave out 'or' and insert
      'does not infringe any copyright in the work provided that it is accompanied by a sufficient acknowledgement.
      (1A) Fair dealing with a work (other than a photograph)'.—[Mr. Butcher.]
      Madam Deputy Speaker (Miss Betty Boothroyd): With this it will be convenient to consider amendment No. 8 in, page 13, line 26, after '(b)', insert
      'with the exception of articistic works, for the purpose of reporting current events.'.
      Mr. Blair: As I understand it—I wish to be clear about this—the Government amendment gives us exactly what we asked for in Committee. Members of the Committee will recall that there was great concern that the fair dealing
      142
      provisions as drafted meant that photographers lost copyright protection in circumstances where, for example, news and current events were reported. That was of tremendous concern to them. It was a right that they had held and they had always been in a particular position in relation to the use of photographs.
      As I read Government amendment No. 43, photographs are specifically and expressly excluded from fair dealing. If I am right, there is no need for me to move amendment No. 8.
      Mr. Butcher: The hon. Gentleman will remember the Committee exchanges on this matter. I prayed in aid the learned Lord Denning. The line of argument that I then deployed would have satisfied such distinguished lawyers as the aforesaid Lord when the matter was discussed in another place. I regret to say that it has not eased photographers' worries. They make the point that, even if we are right in our interpretation of clause 30, they should not be put to the trouble of having to argue the fairness of copying in court.
      Given that we find it difficult to find examples of cases in which the exception could apply, we have concluded that we should not provide a current affairs exception for photographs. To retain clause 30 as it stands would be perfectly proper, but we are prepared to remove the widespread alarm that it has caused in the photographic community. I hope that Opposition Members do not consider it necessary to press their amendment, given amendment No. 43 standing in the name of my right hon. and learned Friend the Minister of Trade and Industry, which gives them what they and the photographers want.
      Amendment agreed to.

    Clause 32

      THINGS DONE FOR PURPOSES OF INSTRUCTION OR EXAMINATION
      Mr. Butcher: I beg to move amendment No. 44, in page 14, line 22, after ',hire', insert 'or'.
      Madam Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to take the following amendments: Government amendments Nos. 45 to 49.
      No. 332, in clause 62, page 24, line 45, after 'hire', insert 'or'.
      No. 333, in page 24, line 46, leave out 'or distributed'.
      Government amendments Nos. 204, 205, and 137 to 140.
      Mr. Butcher: Clauses 32, 35 and 36, and an order under clause 139, permit copies to be made within clearly defined limits for educational purposes to prevent abuse of the exceptions. Such copies are regarded as infringing copies when they are subsequently dealt with by being sold, for example. The definition of "subsequent dealing" includes distribution. That is not right, as it could prevent a teacher distributing copies to his pupils or an education authority distributing material to its schools. What is needed is to prevent subsequent sale or hire, and that is what our amendments will achieve.
      Mr. Blair: We understand what the Government are doing. Having looked at the amendment, we consider that it is in accordance with what we wish.
      Mr. Bowis: Amendments Nos. 332 and 333 are my amendments. Why do we not consider the whole series of amendments? When I raised the matter in Committee, my hon. Friend the Minister kindly said that he would examine the problem. In a subsequent letter, he said that he did not intend that
      "distribution by the teachers to pupils should be excluded."
      He promised to table amendments, and here are the amendments. I am grateful to my hon. Friend.
      Clause 62 omits the omission of the word distribution. I should be grateful if my hon. Friend would elaborate on that point. I appreciate that the matter in this clause may seem a little remote from education, but there are occasions when galleries, museums and so on have links with universities and the academic world. There could be a case for suggesting that such a provision should apply here. Am I right in thinking that a gallery, for example, that has works of art for sale could put on its door a poster, which is a copy of the prime work in the collection, but could not send prints in postcard form to sell the prime object to other people?
      Mr. Butcher: My hon. Friend the Member for Battersea (Mr. Bowis) raised in Committee the matter of subsequent distribution of copies made under the various education exceptions in clauses 32 to 36. He was right to do so. He will have noted the amendments that we are making. However, I do not think that it would be right to make the same amendments to clause 62. If he wishes to tease the arguments from us on this occasion, I shall be happy to discharge an obligation to provide a rationale.
      The purpose of clause 62 is to allow those selling an artistic work to copy it and to issue copies to the public for the purpose of advertising the sale without infringing copyright. Auctioneers, art dealers and others engaged in selling works of art want to be in a positon to include a reproduction of a work in catalogues advertising an auction or sale. That is a long-standing practice, but it may be an infringement of copyright under existing law.
      Subsection (1) allows the production and distribution of catalogues and so on for the purposes of advertising a sale, but subsection (2) ensures that subsequent dealing in copies made for such a purpose is an infringement. This is to protect the interests of the artists involved. Thus, a work may be included in a catalogue to advertise a sale but such catalogues cannot subsequently be sold as art books unless the copyright owner has consented. Nor should they be distributed for any purpose other than that for which clause 62 is intended, which is advertising the sale of artistic works. Any exception to copyright should not be wider than needed to achieve its purpose, which in this instance is sale of artistic works, and the amendment of my hon. Friend the Member for Battersea would have that effect. Accordingly, I hope that he will be sympathetic to my request that he does not press it further.
      Mr. Bowis: I wished only to test the water. I happily accept my hon. Friend's reassurances.
      Amendment agreed to.
      Amendment made: No. 45, in page 14, line 23, leave out 'or distributed'.—[Mr. Butcher.]

    Clause 35

      RECORDING BY EDUCATIONAL ESTABLISHMENTS OF BROADCASTS AND CABLE PROGRAMMES
      Amendments made: No. 46, in page 15, line 29, after ', hire', insert 'or'.
      No. 47, in page 15, line 30, leave out 'or distributed'.—[Mr. Butcher.]

    Clause 36

      REPROGRAPHIC COPYING BY EDUCATIONAL ESTABLISHMENTS OF PASSAGES FROM PUBLISHED WORKS
      Amendments made: No. 48, in page 16, line 5, after ', hire' insert 'or'.
      No. 49, in page 16, line 6, leave out 'or distributed'.—[Mr. Butcher.]

    Clause 50

      ACTS DONE UNDER STATUTORY AUTHORITY
      Mr. Butcher: I beg to move amendment No. 50, in page 20, line 43, at end insert—
      '(3) Nothing in this section shall be construed as excluding any defence of statutory authority otherwise available under or by virtue of any enactment.'.
      Madam Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss Government amendment No. 141.
      Mr. Butcher: The amendment will ensure that a defendant is not debarred from pleading a statutory authority for an act which infringes copyright merely because there is no specific provision in an Act of Parliament. It will be, as under the present law, a matter of construction of the statutory provision in question.
      On about half of the occasions when I have moved an amendment formally, my purpose has been to comply with a request from the Opposition.
      Amendment agreed to.

    Clause 54

      USE OF TYPEFACE IN ORDINARY COURSE OF PRINTING
      Amendments made: No. 164, in page 22, line 27, leave out from '99' to end of line and insert
      '(order for delivery up and right of seizure)'.
      No. 165, in page 22, line 29, leave out 'forfeiture of such an article' and insert 'order for delivery up'.—[Mr. Butcher.]

    Clause 56
      INCIDENTAL COPYING IN COURSE OF USE OF WORK IN ELECTRONIC FORM
      Amendment made: No. 163, in page 23, line 2, leave out Clause 56.—[Mr. Butcher.]
    Clause 59

      PUBLIC READING OR RECITATION
      Mr. Butcher: I beg to move amendment No. 51, in page 24, line 13, leave out subsection (2) and insert—
      '(2) Copyright in a work is not infringed by the making of a sound recording, or the broadcasting or inclusion in a cable programme service, of a reading or recitation which by virtue

      145
      of subsection (1) does not infringe copyright in the work, provided that the recording, broadcast or cable programme consists mainly of material in relation to which it is necessary to rely on that subsection.'.
      The amendment is our response to the arguments of the hon. Member for Caenarfon (Mr. Wigley) in Committee. It ensures that those who record or broadcast live events, such as eisteddfodau, will not find themselves infringing copyright when unforeseeably—it is often unforeseeably—a speaker recites an extract from a literary or dramatic work without the consent of the copyright owner, placing reliance on clause 59. I am happy to give the hon. Gentleman credit for the amendment, which he richly deserves.
      Mr. Wigley: I thank the Minister for responding to the arguments that I advanced in Committee. I am not sure whether the broadcasting authorities in Wales, the governors of the three channels and those involved in the organisation of eisteddfodau fully understood the implications of the Bill when it first appeared in print. When they read the report of our proceedings in Committee, there was apoplexy.
      The House will know—the hon. Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney (Mr. Rowlands) will certainly be aware of this—that BBC Wales, S4C and HTV are much dependent on their capability to broadcast on radio and television the Eisteddfod Genwedlaethol Cymru—the National Eisteddfod of Wales—which will be held next week at Newport. Were they not able to broadcast without being in danger of breaching copyright, they would be extremely concerned. The same applies with Eisteddfod Genwedlaethol Urdd Gobaith Cymru—the Welsh League of Youth eisteddfod—which took place in Merthyr Tydfil last year. The hon. Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney and his wife Janice, worked extremely hard for its success. That, too, would have been in trouble had it not been for the amendment. The same goes for the international eisteddfod. For all these reasons, I welcome the amendment. I congratulate the Minister on his change of post and say that, following the amendment, there will still be a welcome for him at Aberdaron this summer.
      Amendment agreed to.

    Clause 60

      ABSTRACTS OF SCIENTIFIC OR TECHNICAL ARTICLES
      11 pm
      Mr. Fisher: I beg to move amendment No. 318, in page 24, line 16, leave out clause 60.
      Madam Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss amendment No. 331, in page 24, line 18, after 'abstract', insert 'or its typographical arrangement'.
      Mr. Fisher: The purpose of amendment No. 318 is to delete clause 60, in particular its provision for the republication of abstracts by, in effect, a form of compulsory licensing, which is referred to in clause 141(1)(b).
      The amendment raises a point that is different from those that we have been making about copying, but none the less it is important. Abstracts are copyright works of much value, especially to academics and researchers. As we understand it, clause 60 will allow not only copying of abstracts but their republication. That would be in contravention of the Berne convention. Surely authors
      146
      should at least have the right to preserve their copyrights without the arm-twisting that clause 60 appears to impose on them. Some publishers of abstracts will not wish to have such valuable material republished or copied by others, but clause 60(2) may force them to comply under the certifiable schemes referred to in clause 141(l)(b).
      Clause 60 is an undesirable provision, and throws the problems of copying far too wide. We hope that the Government will withdraw the clause.
      Mr. Bowis: I should like my hon. Friend the Minister to elucidate a couple of points regarding facsimile copies of abstracts.
      Although abstracts of articles in the humanities are less common than in the sciences, will my hon. Friend explain why the humanities have been excluded? Should not reference have been made to academic as well as scientific work?
      The fastest way to publish abstracts is reprographically, but under clause 8(1) that would seem to be a breach of the copyright of the typographical arrangement. Clause 8(2) relates to reproduction of the same work. I doubt whether that is what was intended, but I should be grateful for my hon. Friend's elucidation.
      Mr. Butcher: Clause 60, which amendment No. 318 seeks to remove from the Bill, is an exception to the rights of copyright owners, which I moved in Committee. I did so because, after full investigation of the matter, the Government believe that it provides a valuable safeguard for the continued operation of abstracting services, which play an essential role in the dissemination of scientific and technical information.
      As I explained in Committee, the scientific and technical communities are served by a number of abstracting services. Some of them are purely commercial, such as Derwent Publications, and others are offshoots of learned societies, such as the Institution of Electrical Engineers. They scan periodicals from around the world and write or reproduce abstracts of articles of scientific or technical interest. They will normally apply a classification system to the abstracts, so that their clients can readily find those of particular interest to them.
      All that is carried out under the present law, which, in our view, does not allow the republication of abstracts in the absence of authorisation by the copyright owner. We understand that, where authorisation is sought from publishers, it is normally given—usually without any request for payment. However, we also understand that in many cases consent is not sought, for practical or other reasons. In that event, the republication is an infringement of copyright.
      Clearly, abstracting services are highly valued by the scientific and technical communities, and it is unsatisfactory that they should be carrying out their activities on a legally uncertain footing. The easy way of meeting their worries would have been simply to provide an exception to copyright, allowing republication of this kind. We resisted an amendment to this effect in another place, but said that we would consider alternative ways of meeting the problem, in consultation with publishing interests.
      This clause is the outcome. I acknowledge that it has caused some concern to the Publishers Association and the Periodical Publishers Association Ltd. We have, however, taken account of the commercial interests of publishers by providing that the exception in subsection (1), allowing

      147
      republication of abstracts, will be overridden if there is a licensing scheme. Consequently, authors and publishers will have the opportunity to obtain remuneration from this secondary use of abstracts if they wish. Conversely, they will be relieved of the burden of having to respond to individual requests for permission to republish abstracts.
      I should add that we have consulted the Association of Learned and Professional Society Publishers, whose journals and periodicals are among those most likely to be affected, and it is content to see an exception of this sort.
      Amendment No. 331 would extend the exception even further. It would allow the abstracting service not merely to copy the original abstract word for word, but also to copy the original publisher's typography, which would be going too far. Abstracting services are themselves publishers and should be prepared to do their own typesetting. The scientific community needs the information, but it does not need to have it presented in a particular typeface or layout. There is no need to reduce the original publisher's rights any further.
      For the reasons I have given, I must resist both these amendments and I hope that they will not be pressed.
      Mr. Fisher: The Minister said that these abstracts are valued. Will he also confirm that they are valuable and that there is considerable commercial advantage and potential in these abstracts? If he does accept that, and that is the case, is it not bizarre that this uniquely should be ignored in a clause contained in a Bill which seeks to protect people's economic copyright?
      Mr. Butcher: We have debated this at some length, and I have not found an argument to considerably change our view on this. The hon. Gentleman has asked me to come back on a point, so I shall use the opportunity to reply to the question of my hon. Friend the Member for Battersea (Mr. Bowis). He asked why the humanities were excluded, and the answer lies in the remark that I made earlier—that the exceptions should be no wider than necessary. The only case put to us that needed action related to science and technology.
      Amendment negatived.

    Clause 61

      REPRESENTATIONS OF CERTAIN ARTISTIC WORKS ON PUBLIC DISPLAY
      Amendment proposed: No. 52, in page 24, line 34, leave out 'showing,'.—[Mr. Butcher.]
      Mr. Martlew: The Committee was replete with my pedantic legal interventions, but tonight we have been free of them until now. The amendment deletes the word "showing", and it appears from clause 61, as it now stands, that it is not an infringement of copyright to make a graphic work. Does the deletion of the word "showing" not suggest that it may be an infringement to show the results of that graphic work or photograph? Will the Minister explain why that word requires to be deleted?
      Mr. Butcher: The exhibition of an artistic work is not a restricted act either under existing law or under the Bill. That means that the showing of a film, including an artistic
      148
      work, cannot infringe the copyright in the artistic work. The word "showing" is therefore not needed in clause 61(3).
      Amendment agreed to.

    Clause 65

      HIRING OR COPYING OF SOUND RECORDINGS, FILMS AND COMPUTER PROGRAMS
      Amendments made: No. 53, in page 25, line 12, leave out 'hiring' and insert 'rental'.
      No. 54, in page 25, line 14, after 'royalty', insert 'or other payment'.—[Mr. Maude.]
      Mr. Fisher: I beg to move amendment No. 315, in page 25, line 14, at end insert—
      'to the copyright owner and to owners of the copyright in works included in such recordings, films or computer programs'.
      This is a simply addition to the Bill. It would protect the copyright of works included in copyright works in hire arrangements. We are not certain whether the Government have inadvertently omitted to mention the copyright of works in existing copyright works or whether they have been omitted deliberately. We believe that they should be included.
      Mr. Maude: They are certainly not omitted by inadvertence. We debated this matter at some length in Committee. The recollection of that debate may be warmer with some of us than with others.
      The amendment is an attempt to ensure that authors and composers are remunerated when records, films and computer programs are rented out under a statutory licence. We do not believe that the amendment, with which we have some sympathy, as the hon. Gentleman will probably remember from our debate in Committee, will be workable, so I ask the House to resist it.
      Amendment negatived.
      Amendments made: No. 55, in page 25, line 22, leave out 'hired' and insert 'rented'.
      No. 56, in page 25, line 22, leave out 'hirer' and insert 'renter'.
      No. 57, in page 25, line 22, leave out 'hiring' and insert 'rental'.—[Mr. Maude.]
      Mr. Maude: I beg to move amendment No. 58, in page 25, line 26, leave out subsections (5) to (7).
      Madam Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to take the following amendments: No. 230, in page 25, line 28, after 'works', insert 'or films'.
      No. 231, in page 25, line 35, after 'works', insert 'or films'.
      No. 232, in page 25, line 38, at end insert 'or films'.
      Mr. Maude: When I spoke in the Committee debate on the blank tape levy, it was at about this time of night. The difference is that that was the closing speech in the debate; the slightly depressing thing is that this is the opening speech in this debate. In deference to the hour and the great familiarity of hon. Members in the Chamber with the arguments, I shall be brisk in describing the Government's stance.
      The perceived problem is that thousands of people make copies of music from records and the radio in infringement of copyright. Since these infringements take place in the privacy of the home, the copyright owner

      149
      cannot enforce his copyright. He cannot get remuneration for the use of his works and so, it is said, the answer is to put a levy on recording tape and/or recording equipment.
      Mr. Page: My hon. Friend said that thousands of people make copies. Will he amend that to "millions of people", and get it accurate?
      Mr. Maude: I am prepared to admit almost anything. I am prepared to make that trifling correction.
      The money from such a levy would be distributed to copyright owners and, in return, the public would be licensed to make recordings for their private and domestic use. As will no doubt be said during the debate, the Government's view has gone first one way and then the other, but we have had to reach final conclusions and tonight the House must do the same. The Government's conclusion is that a levy should not be introduced, and I ask the House to endorse that conclusion.
      Amendment No. 58 would remove three subsections which were added in Committee. The intention behind them was, as I understand it, not to require the introduction of a levy but to leave the door open for the Secretary of State to introduce a levy if he saw fit.
      Mr. Jeremy Hanley: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his candour in admitting that the Government have moved one way and then the other. However, it is difficult for someone such as myself who is so keen on this issue that I spoke in the House on it at half-past seven in the morning of 18 December 1985, and on three subsequent occasions. Each time I was assured that the levy on blank tapes was being carefully considered and then I was told that it had been accepted through the White Paper.
      Therefore, perhaps my hon. Friend can tell us what thought processes occurred to force the Government to change their mind and what consultations were carried out between the general election, when every Tory candidate fought in support of this issue, and when the Secretary of State made his decision. Did the Government consult the British phonographic industry or the music industry before changing their mind?
      11.15 pm
      Mr. Maude: If I may proceed a little with my speech, the thought processes may become a little clearer. It is clear that the Government did not suddenly wake up one morning and decide to change their mind. If ever any Bill was consulted upon, this is it. The Bill has been subjected to the most enormous consultation and there have been enormous lobbies on both sides. I do not think that anyone could seriously suggest that the blank tape levy is not a matter on which there has been a great deal of consultation because there certainly has been throughout the history of the debate.
      Mr. Hanley: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for giving way again. I asked him what consultations with the music industry had taken place between the general election and the announcement of the change of policy.
      Mr. Maude: I cannot give my hon. Friend a specific answer on that matter at the moment. However, the Department was well aware of the views of all those concerned. We have been consulting all those concerned
      150
      with this matter over a long period and, as I said at the outset, the arguments are clear and are well understood by all concerned.
      The amendments which are grouped with Government amendment No. 58 are, I presume, intended to open up the possibility of a levy on videos as well as one on audio tape. Subsections (5) to (7), which were added in Committee, are technically defective in several respects, not least in that they do not allow the introduction of a licensing scheme in respect of literary works forming the lyrics of songs. If my hon. Friend's amendments were accepted, any video levy would license only the recording of silent movies.
      As I said in Committee, we have not the slightest intention of seeking to use the powers with which the Committee endowed us. If, in the distant future, a Secretary of State were minded to use those provisions, he would find them unusable for their intended purpose. The only consequence of failure to accept my amendment No. 58 would be to leave an unwanted and unworkable power in the Bill.
      In terms of strict law, it was unnecessary for us to table this amendment. We could have accepted the amendments made in Committee, content in the knowledge that they make no difference, but that would have been disingenuous. We do not want a levy, nor, I believe, do the majority of hon. Members. In the circumstance, we should remove from the Bill any suggestion that this House favours the levy solution.
      I have no new arguments to advance tonight. They have all been aired before. It is wrong in principle for the private rights of a few to be enforced by means of a general tax, which hits innocent and guilty alike. That is especially so when the beneficiaries of such a levy would be the relatively well-to-do record companies and pop stars; and those who would pay include the visually handicapped, those with impaired hearing the churches, younger consumers—not a cast list of the rich and famous. It may be that there are poor composers—I hear it said many earn less than £5,000 per year from performances of their work—but let us not delude ourselves. A copyright levy would not benefit them; the money would go to swell the coffers of the composers who already make large sums. It is successful and popular music which is copied most and which would receive the lion's share of any levy. Much would flow overseas, especially to the United States of America, without any corresponding return to United Kingdom composers.
      Mr. Wilson: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that his list of categories containing people that he says would be unfairly penalised under a levy coincides remarkably with groups of people who will lose under the poll tax? It is disingenuous in the extreme to come to the House this week to plead for a few pennies for the blind and disabled when only a week ago the Government bludgeoned out of existence every amendment that favoured the disabled and involved infinitely greater sums of money than this.
      Mr. Maude: That is not the best point that the hon. Gentleman could have raised. It was a fairly poor one. The list that I read to the House contained people who are particularly heavy users of blank tape. It seems wrong that they should be asked to pay a special levy on something that they use for perfectly innocent purposes, in order to provide extra money for an industry that is already doing rather well.

      151
      All hon. Members who spoke in Committee in favour of a levy said quite properly that their support for this proposal depended on acceptable arrangements being found for innocent users, especially blind people. An acceptable relief scheme for blind people is a pipe dream. After we published the White Paper in 1986, we explored every possibility and could not find a way to satisfy the Royal National Institute for the Blind. Hon. Members cannot say that they favour a levy but that, of course, the blind must be looked after. Those are mutually exclusive propositions. Those who favour a levy must do so in the full recognition that blind people will be prejudiced. I do not want to spend a long time going through all the arguments again.
      Mr. Toby Jessel: My hon. Friend is speaking at some length about the blind. Of course everybody cares about blind people and wants to support them. One person in 300 is registered as visually handicapped and on average, people buy eight blank tapes per year. A levy of 10p per tape would come to 80p a year. If a blind person bought twice as many it would come to £1·60 a year. That is 3p a week. Does my hon. Friend seriously believe that blind people who derive a great deal of enjoyment from listening would resent paying 3p a week to musicians, composers and actors who entertain them? Is my hon. Friend not employing a rather small argument to try to defeat the proposal?
      Mr. Maude: The argument is put in perfectly good faith by many organisations that represent blind people. I do not think that the RNIB is filled with any sort of animus against copyright owners. It is an organisation of good will doing charitable work for the good of the blind people that it represents. For my hon. Friend to write this off as a trifling argument and to say that people can perfectly well afford such a levy will not do.
      Members of the Committee who advanced the argument for a blank tape levy were perfectly straightforward about it. They said that no scheme should be introduced unless a relief scheme for blind people could be introduced. In good faith the Government have explored all the possibilities for devising such a scheme. It cannot be done.
      Miss Emma Nicholson: Does my hon. Friend the Member for Twickenham (Mr. Jessel) know that only one in three of all people with visual handicaps are registered, and a smaller percentage of those people with aural handicaps are registered? The Minister has, perhaps, not spoken about those with handicaps quite as forcefully as he has spoken about the blind. I have here a letter from the chief executive of the Royal National Institute for the Deaf and it clearly makes the point on behalf of both problem areas. It says:
      "The RNID fully recognises the rights of copyright owners to protect their interests, but does not believe that a workable levy system including exemptions and rebates for deaf people has been found. Accordingly we are most concerned that should the power in the Bill be used it would penalise deaf people for using a most valuable resource."
      My hon. Friend the Member for Twickenham (Mr. Jessel) said that blind people bought only eight tapes a year. He completely omitted to mention the talking newspapers, from which many hon. Members have had
      152
      letters; I have copies of all those letters, of which there were 400 or 500 in the last three weeks. Even the small talking newspapers regularly use about 400 tapes a week.
      Mr. Maude: My hon. Friend makes a vivid point. I know that the House will accept the argument that she advances on behalf of aurally handicapped people, and I am grateful to her for making her point so powerfully.
      The arguments have been fully exposed. The fashion for a levy solution has now passed. It is worth noting that in its recent Green Paper the European Commission did not build on the levies in France and West Germany to propose a Communitywide system, as some had expected it to; it did quite the reverse.
      People are beginning to realise that levies are not the solution. We should perhaps even begin to question whether there is a problem that needs a solution. The countries with the most buoyant music and record industries—the United States, the United Kingdom and Japan—have survived private copying without a levy, and it now seems that Europe, too, is to turn away from a levy. I invite the House to do the same.
      Mr. Page: Amendments Nos. 230, 231 and 232, standing in my name and that of my hon. Friend the Member for Battersea (Mr. Bowis), provide a simple solution to the Government's difficulty. The Government have introduced the Bill for a variety of reasons, but one of the major reasons must be related to the advances that have been made in new technology. Without those advances, the Bill would be a considerably slimmer volume than it is and we should almost certainly not be discussing a blank tape levy, as it would be quite difficult to reproduce plastic or bakelite discs.
      New technologies have brought advances principally in the handling and dissemination of information—from computers through new printing and reproduction techniques to laser discs, satellites and cables. Those new methods of storing, accessing and spreading information increase its value, but the same technology has made illicit copying that much easier. To take a classic example, educational software never got off the ground because of the ease of making illicit copies. Illicit copies have destroyed the very investment that makes progress possible.
      I say that in reply to those who argue, "Home taping does no harm; the record companies are wealthy enough anyway and can afford to forgo whatever revenue might come their way because of the levy." My hon. Friend the Minister made virtually the same point. I have never believed that one strengthens the weak by weakening the strong, and I do not believe that we shall help the music industry by asking it to forgo what rightfully belongs to it.
      Our debate tonight is not just about money; it is about principles of right and wrong. The loss of sales to British products through illicit copying and breaches of copyright runs into hundreds of millions of pounds. It is impossible to estimate the exact sum but there are figures to suggest that it is in excess of £500 million. No economy in the world would happily forgo that amount of revenue.
      Not only is the overall loss of sales through illicit reproductions virtually incalculable; the creators of original work see their ideas being lost through copying. They also see the sheer difficulties of enforcement. I hope

      153
      that it is those difficulties that lie at the heart of the levy argument. I hope that that, rather than the question of legalising home taping, is at the front of our minds.
      Mr. Tim Devlin: Surely the Government's best argument relates to the proportion of a levy that would go to the artist or the original producer of the work. Can my hon. Friend tell us how much of the levy would go to the artist? My experience of the record industry tells me that the bulk of the levy would go to a record company that had bought the copyright from the artist at a knockdown price when he was a young man.
      11.30 pm
      Mr. Page: My hon. Friend the Member for Stockton, South (Mr. Devlin) did not have the privilege or the opportunity of attending the Committee, but that matter was fully debated then. Whether we like it or not, copyright is invested in whoever has purchased it and in the particular case cited by my hon. Friend it lies with the record company. The strength of the contract between the artist or composer and the record company is another matter. If they become famous enough they may write into their contracts that they should get an advantage from the revenue derived from the levy, but it is up to them.
      I do not apologise for my preamble. Tonight the Government have failed to solve the question of copyright on time shift, and they will shortly make exactly the same mistake with audio taping. For some reason the Government, or rather one or two Ministers, have tied themselves to the rails as the express is thundering towards them—just like the "Boys' Own" stories. There is an alternative, but even after the Green and White Papers and the manifestoes, the Government refuse to take that alternative course of action.
      I accept what the Minister said about the amendment passed in Committee. I accept that it was not up to strength and that it would not have stood up to scrutiny and the test of operation. In Committee we made that same point. We said that the amendment was being used as an example to test the strength of opinion for blank taping. We accepted that it was not pure milk as regards the introduction of a blank tape levy. However, if the amendment had been cleaned up a little, it would have given enabling power to the Minister, had that power been required at a later date. The Government can still untie themselves from the rails, but I do not believe that the will is there.
      Some people may wonder at all the fuss about a "little private copying". One instance of private copying may not be much, but regular home taping is widespread and hits the record, film and video industries. The Minister said that thousands of people are involved, but as he knows from my earlier intervention, we are dealing not with thousands but with millions of people. The problem will get worse as new forms of recording equipment become available.
      I know that great store is set by the introduction of spoilers and that it is believed that they will block the reproduction of digital audio tapes when those tapes become more generally available and attractively priced. I have some experience in the security industry, and I know that for every lock there is a key. For spoilers that key is already available: it is called an enhancer. There may be a proposal to make such enhancers illegal, but making things illegal has never stopped them being used. To
      154
      anyone connected with the production of pre-recorded tapes, the most fair and workable solution is a royalty or levy system. Although such a system would mean revenue to the companies involved, I also believe that it would signify a return to moral standards.
      The Government have done a magnificent job in pioneering a return to a revived economy. Most of the economic indicators show that things are on the way up and the economy is looking more promising than it has done for years. Although that economic success is still too short-lived to be taken for granted, it needs to be reinforced by a social and cultural revolution.
      I shall resist talking about family values and the reinforcement of traditional values, but I believe that it is wrong for the Government to walk away from introducing and supporting the principle of copyright. Technological changes will constantly require control and the guidance of law. That has happened in medicine, and the law will be changed with regard to embryo experimentation. In the same way, by rejecting the amendment, the Government are abandoning the principle of copyright. I do not want to labour the obvious—
      Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: If the hon. Gentleman is so concerned about what is morally right, will he tell us what is morally right about imposing a levy on people who use blank tapes in a perfectly legal way and never copy material that they should not copy? Surely it is wholly unfair to penalise people who obey the law, as opposed to those who break it?
      Mr. Page: The hon. Gentleman has a point. A degree of rough justice is involved in this. I accept that some will be caught in the trap that he has described. With the exception made for people who are visually handicapped and with the proviso that tapes of under 35 minutes length would be exempt, I suggest that very few—perhaps no—users would be thus caught. If they want to avoid this levy—incidentally, it has been absorbed by every tape producer in the countries in which it has been introduced —all they have to do is make sure that they buy tapes less than 35 minutes long—
      Mr. Bennett: Does the hon. Gentleman accept that an oral historian, for instance, would use a large amount of tape? Often such historians are not well funded and the cost of buying tapes of their work is high. They do not want to keep changing tapes for less than 35 minutes length when interviewing people for oral history projects. They want tapes that are as long as possible.
      Mr. Page: As I said, there is an element of rough justice. If a vast number of tapes are being bought for educational purposes, I see no difficulty about arranging some sort of exemption for genuine use.
      We come back to blank tapes and the principle of copyright. The whole purpose of the Bill is to enshrine in legislation a protection for ingenuity and creativity, which constitute two of the great advantages of this nation. Turning a blind eye to the issue shows a lack of moral leadership.
      Mr. Devlin: Would my hon. Friend be in favour of imposing a levy on blank paper for photocopying machines? The principle is the same.
      Mr. Page: When my hon. Friend reflects on that intervention, he may wish he had never made it.

      155
      The House will not be surprised to hear that I do not accept the permissive argument that home taping should be allowed free, gratis and for nothing. A certain body of opinion advocates that line of action, but it breaches the principle of copyright. It becomes almost impossible to know where to draw the line. Will a home owner be allowed an extra copy for his car? Will the standard family with 2·4 children have one or two more copies for the Walkman? If a relative drops in and likes the music that is on, will he be allowed a copy, too? The only safe position is to adhere to the principle of copyright.
      The debate about the legality of home taping in Committee was instructive, if nothing else. My hon. Friend the Minister tackled the matter by saying:
      "If the Committee decide … that it should remain a criminal act to copy copyright audio works, stringent action by the industry could have a salutary effect."
      He went on to say:
      "there are private rights which are enforceable in the courts. They are not enforced at present, and there is scope for that practice to be enhanced."—[Official Report, Standing Committee E, 24 May 1988; c. 336.]
      That was interesting. How did my hon. Friend envisage enforcing the time shift proposal on the 28-day limit?
      The Government's decision to alter that proposal because it was unenforceable provides the answer to my hon. Friend's question. He almost admitted it later in Committee, when he prayed in aid the judgment of Lord Templeman in the Amstrad case—a judgment which most Committee members quoted at one time or another in support of their arguments. The judgment said:
      "A law which is treated with such contempt should be amended or repealed."
      That point was also made in the 1986 White Paper.
      My hon. Friend the Minister tried to justify the Government's changed stance on the levy, at which point the debate became interesting. He said:
      "We have seriously considered such a scheme. I did not simply study it for a few minutes before I began my speech or talked to a couple of people."—[Official Report, Standing Committee E; 24 May 1988, c. 340.]
      That was a Freudian slip, because I reckon that a couple of people spoke to him, and those two people had decided that it would not work.
      The blank tape levy has created more confusion than any other subject. The Conservative manifesto stated:
      "As part of a major reform in the law of copyright home taping will be legalised in exchange for a 10 per cent. levy on blank audio tapes. Organisations and their members who use tapes without breaching copyright, ie blind people, will be able to claim a full rebate."
      Is my hon. Friend saying, as he seems to be implying tonight, that the Government went into the election knowing that they did not have a proper agreed rebate system for blind people? The briefing notes sent out by Conservative Central Office said that special provision would be made for the blind, as well as organisations and individuals who do not infringe copyright. Perhaps that answers the question asked by the hon. Member for Denton and Reddish (Mr. Bennett). I was asked two similar questions, one at the public meeting. Safe with the manifesto and the speaking notes in front of me, I replied, "Yes, we shall introduce a blank tape levy."
      I can only assume that, until election day, the blank tape levy was policy—with the provisos to help the visually handicapped, and exemptions for tapes with a short running time. But within a few weeks of the election, in a
      156
      puff of smoke and a flash of light, the proposal disappeared. I want to know from my hon. Friend what happened. I echo the words of my hon. Friend the Member for Richmond and Barnes (Mr. Hanley), who asked what had happened since the election to reverse the policy contained in the Green Paper, the White Paper and the manifesto.
      The temptation to run through the history of the matter and to list all the committees that have been formed is almost irresistable, but in deference to those who wish to speak I shall resist it. It is a few years since I felt moved enough to vote against the Government. The previous occasion was in 1980, when I voted against them on the employment legislation, and the next year, under a three-line whip, the Government exhorted me to vote for the very proposal that they had tried to block the year before.
      The amendment in the names of my hon. Friends the Members for Battersea (Mr. Bowis) and for Beaconsfield (Mr. Smith) provides a solution to the video and audio tape problem. It reinforces copyright. I do not understand why the Government do not embrace the ideas in the Green Paper, the White Paper and the manifesto. Even at this last moment, I urge my hon. Friend to think again.
      11.45 pm
      Mr. Blair: The blank tape levy, or royalty, was discussed fully in Committee. I do not pretend, and I have never pretended, that this is an easy judgment to make. It is not. But in an imperfect world we should adopt not the perfect solution, because there is rarely one, but the best solution that can be found.
      No hon. Member has suggested either on Second Reading, or in Committee or today that home taping is not practised on a considerable scale and that in the main it is illegal. At the very least, the House has a duty either to make it legal or to provide a proper means of enforcing the remedies against illegality.
      The hon. Member for Hertfordshire, South-West (Mr. Page) referred to the Amstrad judgment. What was remarkable about that judgment was its unanimity about the desirability of removing an unenforceable law. In his speech Lord Templeman said:
      "From the point of view of society the present position is lamentable. Millions of breaches of the law must be committed by home copiers every year."
      He ended the paragraph by saying:
      "A law which is treated with such contempt should be amended or repealed."
      The Government have introduced proposals not to amend or repeal the law but to leave it in an inherently unsatisfactory state.
      The solution to home taping in other countries is a royalty on blank tapes. That solution has been adopted all over Europe, most recently in Spain. It is being operated in West Germany and France. While the Bill was being debated in Committee the Australian Government announced that they intended to introduce a blank tape levy. It could not therefore be said that it would be odd for this country to adopt such a solution. A royalty on blank tapes has been introduced elsewhere, even though the record industries in those countries are far less important than our own.
      Mr. Devlin: How much of the levy in West Germany goes to the composers?
      Mr. Blair: About 60 per cent. I shall turn in a moment to the question of how much of the levy goes to the rich composers and how much of it goes to poorer composers.
      The rest of Europe is moving sensibly towards the introduction of a blank tape levy while the scale of the problem in this country is growing. Many more blank tapes are sold every year than pre-recorded cassettes. Probably two thirds of those tapes, or even more, are used to make illicit copies. Unlawfulness on that scale puts into the context the arguments against the blank tape levy.
      Another argument is that all the money will go to the very rich, to the Michael Jacksons of this world, not to poorer composrs and song writers. The best judges of the interests of poorer composers and song writers are the bodies that represent those people. Their view is unanimous: that the poorer composers and song writers will secure a significant part of that levy. A limit is placed in West Germany on the amount that any song writer can receive. That is a means of distributing the money raised by the levy. It would be bizarre if we were to say that poorer composers and song writers in this country are in a different position.
      The second objection that is made to the blank tape levy concerns the blind, the disabled and other groups. All hon. Members quite rightly take seriously any representations made on behalf of blind, deaf or otherwise disabled people. However, my view is that for the Government, this has become something of a shroud behind which they hide what has been essentially a political and tactical decision, taken for other reasons. I say that because we have made it absolutely clear throughout that we believe that proper exemption schemes should and could be found for such groups. That is why the amendment we tabled in Committee gave the Government a power to introduce the levy scheme. It did not even go as far as some wanted, and impose an immediate obligation on them to do so. That is because the problems of the blind, the disabled, and indeed the oral historians to whom my hon. Friend the Member for Denton and Reddish (Mr. Bennett) referred, require proper schemes to be found.
      At present, a scheme to the satisfaction of the blind, the deaf and the disabled has not yet been found. However, copyright Bills come before the House once every 30 years. Surely it is not unreasonable, given the trend of events elsewhere, to say that at least a power should be on the statute book so that negotiations can be held, hopefully leading to a satisfactory conclusion.
      Miss Emma Nicholson: I am most grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way. Perhaps he can explain why two years of solid negotiations with the blind and deaf organisations, with the Government heavily committed in print to a blank tape levy, have wholly failed to come up with anything that will satisfy those organisations. Will he also explain how on earth he expects a blind person to become other than more dependent, given that any exemption scheme will rely on paperwork, and a blind person will have to find a sighted person to help fill in the form?
      Mr. Blair: I do not think that all exemptions schemes necessarily depend on that. Indeed, West Germany provides an interesting analogy. In West Germany, the royalty has been subsumed into the cost of the tape so the price of a blank tape has not risen at all. In any event,
      158
      paperwork is not the only way of providing an exemption scheme. It could be provided through the allowances paid to blind and disabled people.
      I appreciate that the blind, the disabled and the lobbies associated with those groups will oppose any notion of a blank tape royalty or levy, but ultimately, we have to weigh that objection and consider how serious it is—given the commitment to finding a decent exemption scheme—against the interests of those who are having their copyright transgressed and who, if we leave the law as it is, will continue to have it transgressed without any comeback whatsoever. I find that wholly unsatisfactory.
      Miss Emma Nicholson: I am most grateful to the hon. Gentleman and I shall not ask him to give way again. I recognise his genuine concern and commitment to making a blank tape levy work for the blind and the deaf, as well as for composers. But can I not get it over to him and to other hon. Members that the majority of those who are blind or deaf are not known as such to society? They are not registered, and they are not members of voluntary organisations. They are invisible because they prefer to be treated as normal and we shall not be able to find them.
      Mr. Blair: Those problems are exactly the problems that have been addressed by other legal systems and other Administrations in other countries and they have been overcome.
      It is also important to stress that we must be careful not to exaggerate just how much difference the levy or royalty will make. Listening to some of the comments made outside, it seems as if blind people will be prevented from buying tapes following the passage of a royalty levy. That is simply not the case.
      It is important to retain a sense of perspective. I do not believe that we could not find a workable exemption that would be acceptable to all parties. If a proper exemption scheme cannot be found, a levy should not be introduced. We have made that clear throughout. That is why we have said that a power should be given to the Government rather than an obligation.
      Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: Does my hon. Friend agree that there should be an exemption, not just for the blind and disabled, but for at least all educational users so that the oral historian I mentioned earlier as well as anthropologists, folklorists and others who use tapes in large quantities should not have to pay the levy? Will my hon. Friend also look at the problems for schools? In the new GCSE examination a large amount of work from pupils has to be recorded for moderation purposes. Those are all cases for exemption. However, if there are exemptions will there not be two prices for tapes? If one is not careful, there will be as many infringements by people moving from a legitimate exemption to an illegitimate exemption.
      Mr. Blair: Obviously we have to be careful. It would be absurd to have two different prices for tapes. The Australian Government, who a few weeks ago introduced their own proposals for a blank tape royalty, included specific exemptions for educational institutions.
      If one put all the exemptions together, they would make up a fraction of the problem of illicit home taping. About 50 million to 60 million blank tapes every year are used for illicit home taping. Therefore, it is important to retain a. sense of perspective when talking about the necessary exemptions.

      159
      We believe that the rights of copyright owners are important and it is virtually beyond doubt that they are being infringed on a large scale. We do not say that the levy solution is a perfect one but we do say that it is the best one available. If workable exemptions can be found to take account of the needs of those who deserve exemption, we shall be in a much better position than we are now. Legalising home taping, plus the introduction of a levy system to compensate, must be preferable to the present position. That is the real choice we have to make and we are sure that our judgment is correct.
      Mr. Wigley: The Government have got themselves into an almighty tangle. That became clear in Committee and has become clear again tonight. Day after day we hear from the television advertisements that we are moving towards 1992. Surely we should be taking account of what has been happening in continental countries in recent years and we should be arranging our affairs in a way that gives fair play to the composers and musicians in the countries of Britain.
      The Government are guilty of bad faith on this issue. That has been pointed out to Ministers by Conservative Back Benchers. The Conservatives fought an election only a little over 12 months ago on a policy of introducing charges on blank tapes and then did an immediate somersault. Government Back Benchers and voters outside the House, let alone Opposition Members, are entitled to some explanation of why the change was made. We have not had an explanation. It would seem that some of the big battalions, possibly geared to Japanese interests and so on, have been lobbying hard and that the Government have succumbed to the lobbying. The way in which blind people and other disabled people have been used as part of that lobby is distasteful. I am not willing to accept, from either side of the House, any accusation that we are not interested in the rights and well-being of disabled people.
      Only last week in the debate on the poll tax we heard that there are other ways of looking after disabled people, who will suffer considerably greater increases in the costs imposed on them from the poll tax than from the few pence involved in this issue. We were told that they could be helped through income support and other methods. That argument appealed to Conservative Members at that time. If the argument was valid then, it is valid now.
      The argument put by the Royal National Institute for the Blind to those who have been campaigning on behalf of musicians about why it has not come forward with a scheme is that it is not run in a way that facilitiates the drawing up of a scheme. It is a fragmented organisation, and that makes it difficult. If those who campaign on behalf of blind people were to perceive a real difficulty, they would find a way around it, as has been done in other countries.
      12 midnight
      Doing a wrong to one group does not justify not finding a formula for another group. Pitting one deserving group against another is not a reasonable way forward. Hon. Members from the Opposition parties, at least, are aware of the interests of music unions. Many composers and others have to do on a small income. There could be a scheme similar to that in Germany, where there is a
      160
      mechanism for spreading out the benefits that come from a charge on blank tapes. Goodness only knows that such groups deserve it. There are mechanisms for safeguarding the interests of disabled and blind people. I am convinced of that. People who are involved with disablement believe that that can be done.
      It is not a lucid argument to say that, because of an effect on another group, we shall do an injustice and that we shall not apply the laws of copyright to musicians and composers. There is a way round it. It may be by exemption, it may be by passing over a fund en bloc to the RNIB or other organisations, or it may be by other schemes. I am convinced that it can be achieved.
      We are doing the arts in general a disservice by not moving in the direction in which other groups have been moving on the issue. I do not know whether the Government really believe in what they are doing. We have heard from the Under-Secretary of State for Industry and Consumer Affairs, in his last few hours in his present post. I do not know whether he really believes in the change of course that the Government are taking. I do not know whether the Under-Secretary, the hon. Member for Coventry, South-West (Mr. Butcher), who has done such a great job for the Government on the Bill, really believes, as a Minister with a considerable interest in music and composition, in what the Government are doing as he moves on to a post in the Department of Education and Science.
      The arguments of justice are on the side of making sure that there is a mechanism for recompensing composers, musicians and others. There are other mechanisms for making sure that, in doing so, we shall not do down groups such as disabled people. I should have thought that the Government, with the abilities that they have in other directions, could surely find a way around the problem, even at this late stage.
      Mr. Bowis: A little earlier, with great grace and panache, my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Corporate Affairs stepped down from a previous policy held during the consideration of the Bill. He reminded us of Oscar Wilde's cry that what the world needs is more geniuses with humility; there are so few of us. My hon. Friend was a genius. He showed great humility, and down he stepped with the 28-day shift, and quite rightly, too. Otherwise, we would have condemned our fellow citizens, every month for the rest of their lives, to going back to the tape machine to put on another video to fulfil the terms of the law. We have come up with another solution. He acknowledged that he had left the matter open and had left copyright rather bare and undefended. He suggested that our amendments might cover silent movies only. At least it is a way forward that he can pick up, take away and run with.
      I have some sympathy with the Government. I understand their dilemma. They support the principle of copyright and acknowledge that the present law is unenforceable. They accept the principle of finding an alternative, but they do not think that a viable alternative is the tape levy scheme. I am not one who thinks that the levy is the perfect solution for all problems. The best solution is to find a way of enforcing copyright. The trouble is that copyright is difficult to enforce, yet the House was the authority that decided that performers, composers and producers of music and films should have copyright.

      161
      The purpose of such a decision was, and can only have been, to provide a right to income for one's work and the right not to have one's work tampered with. But Parliament did not provide the realistic means or the method for the performers, composers and producers to enforce that right. In theory, little Johnny, who takes a cassette to his room and records the tape that his friend has lent him, could be taken to court by the record producer. That is clearly absurd. Such a case would not stand up in court and the public would not accept the "catch-you-out" society that sent tape-detector vans out to establish whether little Johnny was recording in his back bedroom. The tape-copying detector van is not with us yet, and I suspect that it never will be.
      We have a law that is unenforceable, and unenforceable laws are bad laws. I do not say that we should abandon copyright law and remove it from the statute book. I say that an alternative form of compensation must be found for those whom we sought to protect originally. The Government have rightly rejected the first option as unfair to the music and films industries, and to composers and performers especially. They rightly proposed a modest tape levy in the past. That was the policy of the Conservative party at the general election and that was the policy on which the Government were elected.
      During the general election, my hon. Friend the Minister talked about not wanting to have a tax, but there was a campaign to portray the levy as a tax. The Conservative party explained that none of the revenue would go to the Government. It was said that the funds raised would go to the performers and copyright owners as a royalty payment by the consumer for recording copyright material. Although composers, lyricists and artists assigned their rights to the recording companies, they would be entitled to a proportion of the levy revenue in their own right. That was the policy on which we were elected, and it was a policy which made sense.
      Everyone was agreed on the principle and the question was how to implement the scheme. Since then, the Government have said that the scheme cannot be implemented. The industry has said that it could and that it would implement it. France has said that it has been implementing such a scheme since 1985. Germany says that it has been doing it for the past 20 years. Portugal, Spain, Belgium and Italy are saying, "We are about to do it." When the Bill was being considered in Committee, Australia said, "We shall do it too."
      The issue was debated in Committee, and it is right that it should be discussed again this evening. We are conscious of the needs of the visually and aurally handicapped and we understand their concern. We insist that any levy should not impose hardship on such people. In other countries, such levies are absorbed by the industry. That means that no cost is passed on to the consumer. The British industry went further than that. The music industry offered a special deal for the blind and the deaf, with free tapes to be provided for such people until and unless it was clear that there would be no increase in price. Instead of having an imposition on such people, a new deal is on offer for those who suffer from sight or hearing problems.
      The Government have said that it would be difficult to work out a scheme. In Committee, they said, "It will be difficult to work it out and we do not like the sound of what is being proposed." Surely we had a right to expect that between Committee and Report the Government would be consulting—"You, the industry, say that you
      162
      could do it. How would you do it? You, the members of the Committee, said that it could be done. How could it be done?" I, as a member of the Committee, have not been asked for my views. I think that, similarly, my colleagues in Committee have not been asked. I do not know whether Opposition Members have been asked for their views, but I doubt it. The industry has not been asked to come forward with a scheme. The Music Copyright Reform Group has not been asked. The same goes for British Phonographic Industry Ltd. the Composers Guild of Great Britain and the British Copyright Council. Since the Committee reported, these bodies have not been asked by the Government how they would put the will of the Committee into practice.
      It seems that a decision has been taken behind closed doors to oppose enabling legislation that would enable a scheme to be implemented of the sort that the members of the Committee had in mind.
      The Government and hon. Members must remember that we are talking about 100 million blank tapes being imported and sold every year in this country. If we deduct 10 per cent. for those who use tapes for oral history studies—I think that was the phrase used by the hon. Member for Denton and Reddish (Mr. Bennett)—for little Johnny or for recording little Joanna's first squeaks on the recorder, we are still talking about 90 million tapes. Not one penny of the proceeds of those tapes is given to those whose music is being recorded. That is what we are trying to put right. The Government's first thoughts were right. The election policy on which we stood and were elected was right, and I tell those composers, performers and companies to whom I gave my word at the election, "This is not the moment to let you down."
      Mr. Malcolm Bruce: I found the Minister's explanation puzzling. Part of the argument is that if it is difficult to enforce copyright, we should not legislate to protect it. Having not been a member of the Committee, I am left wondering why large tracts of the Bill have been enacted if that is the Government's sentiment.
      We are discussing a disabling amendment. The Committee included in the Bill—the legislation will be in force for 20 or 30 years—the power to consider a scheme. The Government have said, "We do not want even to consider the possibility of introducing the scheme for the foreseeable future." That is an inexplicable stance for the Government to take, especially as they fought the election on precisely this issue. We are being asked to remove something from the Bill which does not require the Government to do anything; it simply allows them to consider a possibility in the future.
      The arguments that have been advanced about the problems of disabled people are out of proportion and perspective. I have not heard any pleas or squeals from those who are opposed to the levy about the VAT that disabled people must pay on blank tapes, which is a far more substantial burden than any levy. I would be in favour of a scheme that reduced or eliminated the impact of the levy on disabled people, but that does not justify removing from the Bill the possibility of considering a scheme in the future without primary legislation.
      None of the arguments that have been advanced as special pleading from disabled people are convincing. From certain quarters, that pleading is only crocodile tears. Disabled people could do with many more radical

      163
      reforms and more assistance from the Government than they have received. To hear Ministers pleading the cause of disabled people is, in some cases, a little distasteful.
      There are many ingenious ways in which a levy could be introduced so that the concerns of interested groups could be accommodated. We heard the arguments about distribution and who would receive the money, but we are talking only about the principle of setting up a scheme and discussing in detail how that could be done. Limits could be set, and part of the levy could be specifically earmarked for promotional purposes. It would be possible to allocate some of the money to the Royal National Institute for the Blind and the Royal National Institute for the Deaf and make them agencies for the distribution and sale of exempt tapes.
      The arguments that have been advanced are not convincing; they are cosmetic and are designed to cover up the nakedness of the Government, who have done a volte-face that has embarrassed their supporters, many of whom have gone out on a limb to support the party line only to be asked to deny what they said after such a short period. It is not often that I speak on behalf of the Government's supporters, but many of them have been given a shabby deal.
      I have been involved in one or two meetings where I have heard the vigorous and enthusiastic support of Conservative Members of Parliament for the principle of the levy, and I have seen their satisfaction when they have presented that as the Government's official policy. It is somewhat embarrassing from their point of view that they should be left to defend a volte-face for which they have had no adequate explanation.—[Interruption.] The protests suggest that they are deserving of sympathy.
      12.15 am
      We have failed to receive any explanation for this change, and I believe that the Minister will do himself a great disservice if he does not come up with a more convincing explanation at the end of this debate than he did at the outset. The issue has been thoroughly discussed, had all-party support and had the majority of the House behind it, but has reached the stage where we are now being asked to reverse that policy.
      The Minister should explain to us why he cannot leave in the Bill enabling clauses, why the prospect of ever having a levy should be excluded from the legislation and why we will have to come back to the House and introduce new legislation if there is to be such a levy. We should resist the Government amendment. I hope that the Conservative Members, who have made clear how strongly they feel about it will stay behind and join us in the Lobby. I believe that they should defend their manifesto in a way that the Government are incapable of doing.
      Mr. Chris Butler: On 24 May, my hon. Friend the Minister said:
      "I will look again to see whether we can find a way to meet the mischief that we have identified."—[Official Report, Standing Committee E; 24 May 1988, c. 343–4.]
      I listened carefully to my hon. Friend's speech, but I did not hear any new way to meet the mischief that he admitted. There was no remedy for the injustice that the White Paper recognised in 1986, when it said:
      "the law should be amended to ensure that the owners of rights are able to derive benefit from them."
      164
      My hon. Friend has dismissed the blank tape levy as rough justice. That is so, but the present situation that the Government support trades rough justice for no justice. At the moment, the record industry is getting the rough end of the Government's judgment.
      Large amounts of money are involved. It is estimated that two and a half times as much music is privately copied as is bought in the shops. The record industry has not been greedy. It said that it would settle for the tape levy, which would raise £6 million or £7 million a year. I believe that that is remarkedly reserved. The record industry is healthy, but many composers and song writers earn less than £5,000 a year from performing royalties—in fact, some 94 per cent. fall into that category. Their loss would be proportionately more significant, and it is they who will suffer most if this illegality is not clamped down.
      I wonder whether there is a parallel with the public lending right, which gives compensation to authors for loss of sales because their books are being lent from public libraries. I wonder whether a similar scheme could be devised for records, perhaps costing £3 million to £4 million. I am sure that that would cost less to administer and be easier to collect than the blank tape levy.
      If the majority of adults now tape illegally, if they are not to be penalised in any way, and if no payment is to be collected by this admittedly cumbersome levy, at least I believe that we, the collectivity of taxpayers, can right the most glaring injustices caused by those infringements. After all, the formula or any public listening right could be weighted in favour of the song writers and composers, which may be a way to meet the mischief that the Minister has admitted.
      Mr. Buchan: I shall be brief, but I thought it right that a voice which was not heard in Committee should be heard on this issue, especially as my only other contribution was to release certain aspects of copyright in relation to music.
      I am impressed by the power, force, scale and nature of the people who have been advocating in Britain the need for such a levy to secure not rough justice, but an element of justice. The Musicians Union is one. I remember a campaign with which I have been associated with the Musicians Union over the years—the campaign for live music. It is interesting that even at this late stage the Musicians Union has again reminded us of the importance and value to it of such a levy.
      The problems facing professional musicians in this country are exacerbated by the increasing access to recording and broadcasting, which has meant that live music is under threat because we have been getting a kind of diminution of the base from which our leading musicians come. At one time, when music was heard live, there was a broader base of practising musicians from which the top players emerged. As soon as there is mass recording and broadcasting, as we have now, the base begins to wither because the concentration is on those at the top of the apex who are heard and broadcast. We see that not only in pop and rock, but in classical music.
      I was recently reading some of Bernard Shaw's music critiques and realised that the majority of people in this country could hear any of the Beethoven quartets far more frequently than Bernard Shaw could have heard them in his lifetime. If he heard one of the quartets three or four times, he was lucky, yet any of us can hear any of them any

      165
      number of times. That makes me all the more aware of the perception of his criticism. We never take such facts on board.
      I believe that we should have such a levy precisely because I believe that we could feed it back into the music world in general. One problem is that because of the absence of a levy—however small—the concentration is on only a few elite musicians. I mean elite in the sense of the best known because although I do not think that some of them, are good musicians, they are at the top of the pop scale, for a period. Music then becomes specialised, and advanced recording of that elite militates against the advanced recording and sales of cassettes of others who are not quite at the level of Michael Jackson in terms of the public's boosted and and hyped eye.
      Therefore, the second, middle or young stage of musicians are militated against. When other music is bought, there is a limitation on the recording of that which those groups want to record. All that helps to militate against what we are seeking to do, which is to extend the base and productivity of the live musicians from whom we will get growth for the apex and the top players of the future.
      It is for that reason—among many others—that there is a musical argument about the blank tape levy. Hon. Members have referred to the difficulties that will arise from such a levy and have asked how it will be applied and dealt with, and whether we will put it back into the industry in the form of lending rights as we do with libraries, which was mentioned by the hon. Member for Warrington, South (Mr. Butler).
      I think that we can go one better than that. The problem of library lending rights is that those who are already well paid also receive the best royalties from the libraries. The single serious writer may end up with virtually nothing. Jeffrey Archer, for example, would receive more than, say, G. M. Trevelyan at present. G. M. Trevelyan said that it was a disaster for him when his "History of England" became a best-seller, because he had all his taxation problems in one period. If it had been spread over 10 years, as he had expected of an academic work, he would have been a good deal better off.
      The problem of lending rights is that those who have, get again. I do not know what Jeffrey Archer pays—but come to think of it, never mind what he pays. As I have said, there is a problem. There is a better solution which was advocated in Labour's "Charter for the Arts", which I fear has suffered a sad demise. We argued that the levy should be used to develop the industry. I have argued for a public domain copyright for traditional music, and I think that we should seriously consider a dead writer copyright to assist theatres and to encourage new writers for the theatre. Such a levy could be an encouragement for new musicians and composers.
      I believe that the Musicians Union is saying the same as me, except that it cannot say it so directly. We should invest in the base, for the musical development and education of new musicians, new compositions and their inspiration. The modern classical composer has great difficulties. They are not all Maxwell-Davies. A serious composer has difficulty making any money. They teach or perform. Edward McGuire is one of our leading Scottish composers but he lives by, among other things, teaching and playing in a folk group.
      We could assist the levy to help new composers. All political parties have been pledged to a levy. The
      166
      Conservative party has not made a convincing case for reneging on its pledge. The Government have talked about difficulties. Every Government, including the one I was in, talked about difficulties when they were afraid to face up to a principle. Difficulties become a substitute for tackling the principle.
      Of course there are problems with various organisations, but we should involve them more, saying, "Here is money. How can you best use it?" I do not accept that there is a basic problem. It is a matter of will. The new clause does not say how we should proceed. It says that it will be 30 or 40 years before we consider the matter again, so we should at least write in the power to act. It does not suggest that we should act. Such a provision will sharpen thinking enormously.
      I hope that Conservative Members will stick to their pledges. Whatever may be their cowardice in the face of pressures such as we have witnessed, they should say to those who say, "Think of the deaf, the poor, the blind, the lame and the halt": "You did not give a damn for the deaf, the poor, the blind, the lame and the halt when the poll tax was being passed." Such an argument will not wash. Conservative Members who want to stick by their policies had better stick by their courage, their convictions and their party programme, and vote with us.
      Mr. Jim Lester: My role in life in this Parliament seems to be speaking late and briefly about matters on which we feel strongly.
      I support my hon. Friends the Members for Hertfordshire, South-West (Mr. Page) and for Battersea (Mr. Bowis), who toiled long on the Committee, as have all who have spoken in this debate. I declare an interest in that I am concerned about intellectual property and have been since I came to the House. I welcome this, the first Bill to begin to deal with that issue.
      It is not possible to divide the concept of intellectual property between deserving authors, computer programmers and designers and the undeserving performers of music, and expect to carry any weight in international circles. We have a Bill with 294 clauses, and we are leaving a damned great loophole in it. Some 90 million tapes are bought each year. They exceed the number of tapes of original works. If the Bill is left as it is, it will contain a massive loophole on the most essential element of intellectual property. I have listened to all the arguments I have rehearsed all the arguments with every Secretary of State in the Department of Trade and Industry since 1982. At the beginning many of them were reluctant to listen to the arguments but in the end everyone accepted the justice of a blank tape levy.
      12.30 am
      As has been said, we have been through the procedures of a Green Paper, a White Paper, the Queen's Speech and the Bill. The only two Ministers I got my hands on were the two who arbitrarily reversed the decision without consulting anybody. If the Government think that they can gain respect in the House by passing such legislation, they should think again. There is the matter of rough justice. I have taken part in phone-in programmes. Young people have phoned in and when they understand that they are being asked to pay 10p for the privilege of legally copying anything that they wish, they have said that that

      167
      is nothing. They say that compact discs cost £9 or £12 and that they would welcome being put on the right side of the law.
      Many hon. Members do not understand what young people do. I invite those hon. Members to go into record shops and have a look around them. On the same side of the shop as the compact discs and tapes they will find blank tapes. Most young people that I know, and certainly my nephews, rush home with a new record and copy it for all their friends and dish it out generally. Of course they do not necessarily charge, but such recording is common practice using the equipment that is now available. They might even copy records for my hon. Friend the Minister so that he can play it in his car when he drives down from his constituency. Perhaps he does not realise that he is breaking the law when he puts such a tape in his machine.
      Mr. John Butterfill: Does my hon. Friend agree that the people he is seeking to protect, small composers and people who are struggling, would not benefit from the levy? The large record producers who do not seem to be in financial difficulties would benefit.
      Mr. Lester: Does my hon. Friend seek to defend the interests of successful authors such as Jeffrey Archer? I see no point in protecting his rights because he sells many books and makes much money from copyright. Under this levy contracts would change dramatically. With the levy in place new contracts in the music industry would contain clauses that would be different from those that were in place before the levy.
      People who would not use blank tape to copy copyright are a tiny minority. The argument of rough justice is turned on its head. It is rough justice that satisfies 90 per cent. of the people who use tape to break copyright as opposed to the tiny percentage who do not. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry defended his decision in the Lords. The only argument that he could think to advance was about the blank tape in his answerphone. He perhaps did not realise that that tape was excluded from the legislation because it would be very unlikely to run for more than 35 minutes. Even if it was not excluded, how many times does one buy a blank tape for an answerphone? I suggest that it comes free with the kit and probably lasts 10 years. On that basis it probably costs a penny a year and I hardly think that that would cause hardship to my right hon. Friend.
      This is a shabby move and we will regret it. It makes the legislation that we seek to pass very arbitrary. It will be difficult for my hon. Friends to defend in the courts of Europe and in Singapore and Taiwan, where we choose to reinforce the principle of the copyright of intellectual property. I hope that, even at this stage, the Government will consider thinking again.
      Mr. Simon Coombs: There is no more intractable problem in the whole Bill than that which exercises us in this clause. Deliberations by many Governments and, most recently, by the European Commission, have failed to find a good solution to the problem of home taping. Where the rights of the owners of copyright are enshrined in law, as in the United Kingdom, Eire, Belgium, Greece, Luxembourg and Italy—all countries within the European Community—copying is simply theft.
      168
      Normally and naturally, society's response to theft is to condemn it and to demand action to stop it. But what happens when the theft is perpetrated by a substantial proportion of the population? It has been estimated that more than 50 per cent. of the population indulges in home taping. When my hon. Friend the Minister said that we were talking about thousands of people, he was rightly corrected by my hon. Friend the Member for Hertfordshire, South-West (Mr. Page). We could be talking about 28 million people or more; it is certainly not thousands.
      It is the development of the technology involving a major improvement in the quality of copying equipment and a reduction in its price which has made this practice possible, and the steady reduction in the cost of the equipment has made it increasingly widespread.
      The members of the Standing Committee were annoyed that they had been unable to obtain a copy of the European Commission's Green Paper. That document has now become more widely available, and it would be worth while for the House to consider what happens in a number of other European countries. In six countries of the European Community—the United Kingdom, Eire, Greece, Luxembourg, Belgium and Italy—copying is not permitted. In one country, the Netherlands, it is permitted, and in the remainder—Denmark, Germany, Spain, France and Portugal—it is permitted but with the understanding that there should be recompense for the owners of the copyright.
      In other words, nearly half the countries of Europe allow for a levy or royalty on blank tapes and the trend in Europe and elsewhere in the world is in that direction, yet in this country the Government choose to buck the trend and deny copyright owners what is rightfully theirs.
      The 1986 White Paper "Intellectual Property and Innovation" put forward proposals for a blank tape levy in considerable detail. The Government concluded that copyright owners and performers should be remunerated for the use of their material. The White Paper said:
      "there is no realistic alternative to a compulsory levy on blank recording tape as a means of providing such remuneration".
      The Government were right.
      It was proposed that the royalty should be payable by manufacturers and importers who were the first traders in the United Kingdom and that the Secretary of State should specify by order the categories and performers entitled to benefit from the royalty proceeds. At that stage it was suggested that the rate of the royalty should be fixed at 10 per cent. of the manufacturer's price for the blank tape.
      The Government said that in reaching their conclusions they had had particular regard to
      "the need to put the law on a sensible and—as far as possible—enforceable basis, as well as the need to balance the interests of copyright owners and performers with those of the public at large."
      I make no apology for putting those words on record once again. They represent the views of the Government in 1986 and even in 1987 at the general election. Those of us who fought the election on that clear understanding of the Government's intention feel aggrieved. We feel let down by what happened subsequently. A new Government took office and new Ministers were appointed to the Department of Trade and Industry. Suddenly, and without any warning, the weathercock swung and the policy changed. None of the facts had changed and none

      169
      of the background arguments had changed—only the Ministers. It could go down on record as the fastest U-turn of all time.
      What are the arguments that the Government now advance in support of their rejection of the levy, given that they argued comprehensively and satisfactorily for such a levy prior to the election? The Minister has said that there is no acceptable scheme for organisations representing the blind. That is not a great surprise to me. If those organisations were asked, "Is there a scheme that you would accept?", the answer would naturally be no. If the Government had said, "We intend to introduce the levy; will you tell us how you would like to see your members helped?", the answer would have been yes. If one asks the wrong question, one gets the wrong answer.
      Many blind people do not want to be treated differently from the rest of the community. Many are keen to have their disability set aside and to be treated as ordinary people, as they are in every other respect. Therefore, why should the Government lean over backwards to help a small proportion of the population who do not want to be treated differently? That would be unsatisfactory, especially as the vast majority of the population would be allowed to abuse copyright and break the law.
      Perfectly adequate proposals have been put forward for exempting tapes of less than 35 minutes as well as proposals to make other exemptions that would have satisfied blind organisations had they been put on the spot and asked to discuss them seriously.
      The idea that the levy is a tax is constantly raised as a reason for its rejection. My hon. Friend the Member for Battersea (Mr. Bowis) has already quoted what the Government, prior to 1987, said about that. It is not a tax but a royalty or a levy. A tax can only be an impost of Government on people for the benefit of raising funds for that Government. The levy does not fall into that category and every time a Minister uses the word "tax", he is wrong and it is right that we should correct him.
      We have been told that the bureaucracy involved is too complicated. The collecting societies already exist and have already said that they are prepared to take on that extra responsibility; after all, what is the responsibility? It means collecting one cheque per annum from each importer of blank tapes, most of which come from the far east. There would not be a great deal of bureaucracy. The cost would lie in the distribution of the revenue from the levy to those who are entitled to receive it. It is up to those receiving it to reach a solution as quickly as possible about how to distribute the levy proceeds to reduce their loss of income. West Germany and France have embraced the levy and it seems to work well for them. I find it impossible to understand the argument that it could not work well here.
      Even at this late hour, a number of factors relating to the problem have not been discussed. Six times more music comes from taping than from the original records and tapes. That recording is made from the radio or from records borrowed from others. The basic product of composers, musicians and record companies—irrespective of which of them is the copyright owner—is exploited and the reward of that owner is drastically reduced. The Government would want us to believe that the amount involved is small, but more than 50 per cent. of the population copy music. Already 50 per cent. of the owners of compact disc players use them in conjunction with tapes to record improved quality music. Eighty per cent. of those
      170
      between the ages of 8 and 14 are already copying music. More and more younger people are copying music and therefore, in the future, a higher proportion of the population will copy music.
      Ninety million blank tapes were imported in 1986. The figure for 1987 will be nearer 100 million. Ninety per cent. of them are used for copying music. The only weapon that the Government offer the aggrieved owners of a copyright is a civil action for damages or compensation, which is virtually unsustainable in the courts. The Government are failing in their duty to these people.
      12.45 am
      In Committee my hon. Friends proposed that the Government should be enabled to introduce a licensing scheme. The Government do not want it. Why not? Are they particularly anxious to support the importers of Japanese tapes? Are they anxious to deny support to a highly successful indigenous industry, which brings in foreign earnings and is being robbed? Are they anxious to avoid following the lead of their partners in the European Community? Surely not. Are they anxious to resist the sensible arguments of my hon. Friends? Are they anxious to do a U-turn away from their policies of the previous Parliament? Surely not. I do not know why the Government persist with this crazy policy. They will not tell us why—
      Mr. Butterfill: Does my hon. Friend agree that it might be something to do with the fact that the general public might conceivably not understand why we would be taking money from the blind to give to the Beastie Boys?
      Mr. Coombs: My hon. Friend attempts to drag me back to the arguments about the blind. If he has been listening to my speech he must know the answer to his question. I shall deal with his point about the Beastie Boys, by which I assume he means the pop group and, perhaps, the record industry. It is not the job of the House or the Government to play Robin Hood and decide that the rich are rich enough. The law is the law, and the House should consider that. If, as a result of upholding the law, those who are wealthy become more wealthy, so be it. We cannot pick and choose and tell wealthy people to give up some of their wealth because someone else has found a way of stealing it from them. If we adopt that view, we are all wasting our time here. I do not want to do that.
      In fairness, we should note the Government's willingness to take action on the rental right and on the protection of anti-spoiler devices. Both of those are potentially greater threats to the record industry than home taping. We thank the Government for the action that they propose to take. But it amounts to a policeman telling someone that he would take action to stop him being murdered but that he was too busy to stop him being robbed. I do not see the logic or justice of that. We are entitled to demand that the law be upheld. The idea that action on future problems obviates the need to deal with the present one is not tenable.
      Finally, I declare my interest. I am a customer of the record industry. I want it to prosper. Without its success, there will be no money for the non-commercial classical music which I love, and no money for the experimental new groups of tomorrow. Had we adopted this policy 25 years ago, when there was little home taping because the technology was not available, we might not have enjoyed

      171
      the music of groups such as the Beatles, because the money for contracts to record them would not have been forthcoming.
      The Government have failed to deal with the problem of home taping. They have rejected a sensible solution that has been accepted by other Governments. I cannot be like the Vicar of Bray and agree with everything the Government say. If the Government want to stand on their heads from time to time, that is fine; but I shall not join them in what must, for all of us, be an uncomfortable and undignified attitude. If I must be disloyal, I choose to be disloyal to the current policy. Two years ago, I should have been loyal, because the policy then was the opposite of what it is today. I may prove to be loyal again in the future.
      Miss Emma Nicholson: Perhaps I may make a point that has not been covered tonight or in Committee. There has been a change since the general election; indeed, there has been a change since the White Paper. If right hon. and hon. Members have a moment to listen—it is not late, but early—they may see the reasoning behind the Government's change in stance.
      I speak about technological advance and about further consultation with the computer software industry. Since the White Paper was issued, there has been a shift in the way in which sound recordings are made. Traditionally, music has been recorded in analogue form and computer software has been recorded digitally. That is now changing, and music is being recorded digitally. That means that there is no difference between what one chooses to record and what one chooses to copy. Some of the machines that are coming over from Japan—far more worrying than the market being flooded by blank tapes from Japan—will have exactly the same effect on recording computer software as they will have on recording material produced by the Rolling Stones, if they still exist, or by J. S. Bach. It is the same equipment, and it will make the same recording.
      The problem is that, if we legalise the home taping of sound recordings, which we would do by imposing a 10p levy on the price of a blank tape, we shall also legalise—perhaps without meaning to—the home taping of computer software. That represents a very different amount of money. The imposition of a 10p levy on a blank tape may lead one to believe that the composer has been properly recompensed. Perhaps the tape on which one is recording costs £1, so 10p is a nice sum. But computer software may have £2 million-worth of human intellectual endeavour within it. How could we price the levy on that blank tape? I suggest that £100,000 would not be too much.
      The technology has shifted in the past 18 months or year. Perhaps that is why the Government have shifted their stance. The computer industry is a £2 billion industry and is growing at the rate of 25 per cent. a year. Of course, people who want home taping to be legalised will answer that the 10p is not meant to pay for computer software, and that people will be authorised to copy only sound recordings. But there will be a problem in that industry, because in today's world sound recordings also include video recordings. The general practice is that when a pop group makes a sound recording, it makes a video, too. The music is recorded not just for the ear, but for the eye. What
      172
      fun we shall have if it becomes legal to re-record a video at home, but it is legal to record the audio tape only if one has paid the levy. Yet with an optical disk one uses the same machinery to record both. Perhaps we should leave the proponents of the 10p levy to sort out that red herring for themselves. My problem is how to explain to the House why it is impossible to go ahead with a blank tape levy, given the advances in modern technology.
      The computer industry has adopted a completely different stance from that adopted by the sound recording industry. It has put its house in order. I have already referred to the fact that it is growing at the rate of 25 per cent. a year. In the last three years it has managed to contain the growth of theft. Theft has not increased by 25 per cent., in line with the growth of the computer industry. It has remained static.
      The industry has saved itself £50 million a year in each of the last three years. It has done that by mounting prosecutions in the civil and criminal courts against those who illegally take computer software. I ask myself whether that might be a possible way forward for the sound recording industry. It has not mounted a single prosecution during the last 10 years against illegal theft. I wonder whether the sound recording industry has dragged its feet because it expected the Government to do its work for it.
      Mr. Lester: Is there not a considerable difference in scale between copying computer software and those who are likely to do it for gain and prosecuting every young person between 16 and 18 who makes copies of compact discs? It is difficult to accept my hon. Friend's comparison, because of the gains that those who copy computer software make when they resell the item.
      Miss Nicholson: My hon. Friend asks three questions in one. He may not realise the relevance of personal computers. Their sale has increased markedly in recent times. Young people often have in their bedroom a small machine, relatively modest in price, whose disks contain several million pounds-worth of research. Young people like to copy the hard disks of personal computers, thereby creating another floppy disk or hard disk, and to pass them on to brothers, sisters, cousins and school friends. That is why I referred not just to criminal prosecutions but also to civil prosecutions.
      I failed to refer to the third leg of the computer software industry's tripod: the education campaign. It has been shaming people into not copying. It has conducted a good educational campaign, including the distribution of pamphlets. There has been education, as well as civil and criminal prosecutions.
      My hon. Friend also referred to compact discs and, by implication, to the quality of the recordings. I believe that compact discs will be out of date fairly soon. They will be overtaken by digital recordings that produce excellent, perfect copies which will be sold all over the world. Digital recording has changed the picture. The quality of digital recording means that the copy is as perfect as the original recording.
      Much has been made in the debate of the European Community's Green Paper. Chapter 3 deals with home taping. My hon. Friends have quoted selectively from it, but the Green Paper does not recommend the harmonisation by member countries of their approach to the levy. It proposes a multi-faceted approach. In other

      173
      words, it suggests that there are a number of ways in which member countries of the European Community can tackle the problem of home copying. The blank tape levy is only one solution, and because of its difficulties the Green Paper does not recommend that all member countries should be harmonised and should follow that route.
      1 am
      The Green Paper recommends a hardware solution which it highlights as the method which would solve the problem completely. That is the solution whereby, burnt into the core of the recording machine, is material which stops home copying. Encoded on the tape machine and burnt into the hardware is a piece of equipment which will stop copying of that tape if the particular encoding is not present. That is the route which the European Green Paper overwhelmingly recommends to member states.
      Finally, if I may look back for a moment, I extend to the Government thanks for their sensitivity in dealing with the practical problems of the disabled, and for listening to the concerns of the computer software industry about information technology. In this clause, as in new clause 5, clauses 17(2) and 24 in particular, the Government have reached conclusions which will provide the proper framework for the continuing creativity and growth of that immensely valuable industry. The Minister and his civil servants in the Department of Trade and Industry have all our thanks.
      Mr. Maude: When I introduced the amendment I said that I had no new arguments to offer. This subject has been well aired over many years and the arguments are all familiar. I hope that my hon. Friends and Opposition Members who have spoken in the debate will not take it amiss when I say that no new arguments have been offered by them either. We are all very familiar with this well-worn ground and I hope that the House will agree that we now need to reach a decision.
      The hon. Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair) said earlier that these were not matters on which any of us could be certain that we had a monopoly of the truth or of wisdom. He ended his speech with a ringing declaration that he was certain that his judgment was right. Nonetheless, clearly we are not dealing with the eternal verities, but with a practical matter on which a practical judgment has to be made. The practical judgment which the Government have made is that a scheme to introduce a blank tape levy cannot be formulated in such a way to do justice to the interests of disabled people.
      I have to say to hon. Members who have blithely and glibly said that it can be done if people of good will put their heads together in a practical way and resolve it, that, at a time when the Government were fully committed to introducing such a scheme, we worked hour after hour with the relevant bodies to try to formulate such a scheme, and I have to say, in all honesty, that it cannot be done. It has been suggested that we keep the power on the statute book just in case it becomes possible later on. I honestly do not think that it would be an act of good faith to do that and to hold out the hope to those who set store by it that at some stage such a levy will be introduced. It cannot be done, so it would not be right to retain the power.
      It has been pointed out that West Germany has had such a scheme for 20 years. However, that scheme makes no provision for exempting or providing relief for innocent users of blank tapes. To say that that provides a model for
      174
      us is to ignore the remarks of those who have been propounding the scheme. As has been made clear tonight as well as in Committee, a precondition of having a levy was that a scheme for providing relief for innocent users should be incorporated. In view of the Government's practical conclusion that no such scheme can be formulated, I have no alternative but to invite the House to agree with my amendment.
      Question put, That the amendment be made:—
      The House divided: Ayes 134, Noes 37.

      Division No. 444]

      [1.5 am

      AYES

      Alexander, Richard

      Hunt, David(Wirral W)

      Alison, Rt Hon Michael

      Hunt, John(Ravensbourne)

      Amess, David

      Hunter, Andrew

      Amos, Alan

      Irvine, Michael

      Arbuthnot, James

      Jack, Michael

      Arnold, Jacques(Gravesham)

      Janman, Tim

      Arnold, Tom(Hazel Grove)

      Jones, Gwilym(Cardifl N)

      Ashby, David

      Jones, Robert B(Herts W)

      Atkinson, David

      King, Roger(B'ham N'thfield)

      Baker, Nicholas(Dorset N)

      Knapman, Roger

      Baldry, Tony

      Knight, Greg(Derby North)

      Batiste, Spencer

      Knight, Dame Jill(Edgbaston)

      Bellingham, Henry

      Lang, Ian

      Bennett, Nicholas(Pembroke)

      Lawrence, Ivan

      Bevan, David Gilroy

      Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark

      Blackburn, Dr John G.

      Lightbown, David

      Boswell, Tim

      Lilley, Peter

      Bowden, Gerald(Dulwich)

      Lloyd, Peter(Fareham)

      Brandon-Bravo, Martin

      Lord, Michael

      Brazier, Julian

      Lyell, Sir Nicholas

      Bright, Graham

      McLoughlin, Patrick

      Burt, Alistair

      Major, Rt Hon John

      Butcher, John

      Mans, Keith

      Butterfill, John

      Marshall, John(Hendon S)

      Carlisle, Kenneth(Lincoln)

      Marshall, Michael(Arundel)

      Carrington, Matthew

      Martin, David(Portsmouth S)

      Carttiss, Michael

      Maude, Hon Francis

      Chope, Christopher

      Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin

      Clarke, Rt Hon K.(Rushcliffe)

      Miller, Sir Hal

      Colvin, Michael

      Mills, Iain

      Coombs, Anthony(Wyre F'rest)

      Mitchell, Andrew(Gedling)

      Couchman, James

      Monro, Sir Hector

      Cran, James

      Morris, M(N'hampton S)

      Currie, Mrs Edwina

      Morrison, Rt Hon P(Chester)

      Curry, David

      Moss, Malcolm

      Devlin, Tim

      Moynihan, Hon Colin

      Dorrell, Stephen

      Neale, Gerrard

      Dover, Den

      Neubert, Michael

      Durant, Tony

      Newton, Rt Hon Tony

      Fallon, Michael

      Nicholls, Patrick

      Favell, Tony

      Nicholson, David(Taunton)

      Fenner, Dame Peggy

      Nicholson, Emma(Devon West)

      Fishburn, Dudley

      Onslow, Rt Hon Cranley

      Forman, Nigel

      Paice, James

      Forth, Eric

      Parkinson, Rt Hon Cecil

      Franks, Cecil

      Patnick, Irvine

      Freeman, Roger

      Porter, David(Waveney)

      French, Douglas

      Portillo, Michael

      Garel-Jones, Tristan

      Powell, William(Corby)

      Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

      Rathbone, Tim

      Gow, Ian

      Redwood, John

      Gregory, Conal

      Ryder, Richard

      Griffiths, Peter(Portsmouth N)

      Sackville, Hon Tom

      Ground, Patrick

      Shaw, David(Dover)

      Hamilton, Neil(Tatton)

      Shaw, Sir Michael(Scarb')

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

      Shelton, William(Streatham)

      Hargreaves, Ken(Hyndburn)

      Shepherd, Colin(Hereford)

      Harris, David

      Speller, Tony

      Hawkins, Christopher

      Spicer, Sir Jim(Dorset W)

      Hayes, Jerry

      Stern, Michael

      Hayward, Robert

      Stewart, Allan(Eastwood)

      Heddle, John

      Stewart, Andy(Sherwood)

      Hind, Kenneth

      Sumberg, David

      Howard, Michael

      Thompson, Patrick(Norwich N)

      Howarth, G.(Cannock & B'wd)

      Thurnham, Peter

      175

      Waddington, Rt Hon David

      Watts, John

      Tellers for the Ayes:

      Widdecombe, Ann

      Mr. Alan Howarth and Mr. David Maclean.

      Yeo, Tim

      NOES

      Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)

      Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)

      Blair, Tony

      Loyden, Eddie

      Bowis, John

      McAvoy, Thomas

      Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)

      Martlew, Eric

      Buchan, Norman

      Meyer, Sir Anthony

      Clay, Bob

      Michie, Bill(Sheffield Heeley)

      Coombs, Simon(Swindon)

      Nellist, Dave

      Cousins, Jim

      Page, Richard

      Cryer, Bob

      Rowlands, Ted

      Cunliffe, Lawrence

      Skinner, Dennis

      Dewar, Donald

      Steel, Rt Hon David

      Dixon, Don

      Taylor, Matthew(Truro)

      Doran, Frank

      Wallace, James

      Fisher, Mark

      Welsh, Michael(Doncaster N)

      Foster, Derek

      Wigley, Dafydd

      Golding, Mrs Llin

      Wilson, Brian

      Greenway, John(Ryedale)

      Haynes, Frank

      Tellers for the Noes:

      Hughes, Simon(Southwark)

      Mr. Allen McKay and Mr. Alun Michael.

      Jones, Ieuan(Ynys Môn)

      Kirkwood, Archy

      Amendment accordingly agreed to.
      Amendments made: No. 59, in page 25, line 39, leave out 'hiring' and insert 'rental'.
      No. 60, in page 25, line 41, at end insert 'in electronic form'.
      No. 61, in page 25, line 42, leave out subsection (9).
      No. 62, in page 26, line 2, leave out 'hiring' and insert 'rental'.—[Mr. Maude.]
      1.15 am
      Mr. Doran: I beg to move amendment No. 5, in page 26, line 2, at end insert—
      '(11) No order made under this section shall apply to a public library and such libraries shall be treated as licensed by the copyright owner to hire to the public copies of sound recordings, films or computer programs without payment of royalty.'.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Paul Dean): With this it will be convenient to discuss Government amendments Nos. 156, 158 and 160.
      Mr. Doran: As clause 65 stands, it provides for an automatic licence of right for the payment of royalties in certain instances. This applies to
      "the hiring to the public of copies of sound recordings, films or computer programs".
      The amendment seeks to exclude public libraries from the operation of the royalty clauses. Libraries are public bodies carrying out public duties. They tend to hire tapes and videos that are not in demand and thus are not easily obtainable from commercial lending sources.
      Mr. Maude: Public libraries in the United Kingdom spend about £4 million a year on purchasing sound and video recordings for lending. The interests of copyright owners would be adversely affected if public libraries were exempt from the rental right.
      Making public libraries subject to the right will not necessarily add to public expenditure. Library authorities have power, if they wish, to pass the rental fee on to the people who borrow sound and video recordings and computer programs from them.
      The Bill as it stands would allow public libraries to avoid the rental right by lending sound and video recordings and computer software without charge.
      176
      It is Government policy to encourage public libraries to generate new income for growth by providing a wider range of charged services. The Government therefore intend to make public libraries subject to the rental right whether they lend free or for a charge. Amendments 156, 158 and 160 will achieve that.
      Mr. Doran: I am not satisfied with the Minister's response, but I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
      Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

    Clause 69
      RECORDING FOR PURPOSES OF TIME-SHIFTING
      Amendment made: No. 243, in page 27, line 31, leave out subsection (2).—[Mr. Maude]
    Clause 76

      REQUIREMENT THAT RIGHT BE ASSERTED
      Mr. Fisher: I beg to move amendment No. 9, in page 30, line 19, leave out from 'public' to end of line 21.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss amendment No. 10, in page 30, line 22, after 'public', insert
      'otherwise than by broadcasting or including it in a cable programme service'.
      Mr. Fisher: As Ministers know only too well, we are staunch supporters of the importance of moral rights. We shall be advancing that support when we come to support amendment No. 11. There are circumstances, however, where moral rights are impracticable, and we believe that the case that has been made by broadcasters—I understand that the Government are aware of it—is one such example. If clause 76(4)(a) stands, broadcasters filming a programme of pictures or sculptures for an arts programme would be obliged to identify at the end of the programme every artist and every work that has passed in front of the camera.
      Mr. Butcher: I am rather surprised that the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central (Mr. Fisher) tabled the amendment. Opposition Members devoted much time in Committee to trying to strengthen the moral rights of authors, but are now suggesting that we considerably weaken them. They are singling out one group of authors whose cause they have hitherto championed—photo-graphers. Amendments Nos. 9 and 10 seek to deprive the authors of artistic works of the right to be identified when their works are broadcast or included in a cable programme service. I assume that the amendments have been tabled on behalf of broadcasters who are concerned about identifying photographers whose works are included in television and cable programmes.
      In Committee, I explained our reluctance to introduce any further exceptions to moral rights. We feel that we have gone far enough to meet the concerns of users of copyright works who feared that their normal business practices would be turned upside down by the new moral rights. The Bill already provides that, first, the paternity right does not apply to employees. It would not even arise in the case of a photographer employed by a broadcaster. Secondly, clause 78(5) disapplies moral rights in respect of

      177
      any work made for the purpose of reporting current events. This would include a photograph taken to illustrate a news item.
      For works made by freelance authors for non-current affairs programmes, there are further safeguards. The paternity right has to be asserted formally by the author concerned before it can be effective, and there is always the possibility of agreeing to a waiver of the right. These provisions offer plenty of scope for broadcasting organisations to reach satisfactory contractual arrangements with freelance photographers.
      The amendments pick on one group of authors for rather unfair treatment. I cannot see why the author of a literary work—such as a poem recited on television— should enjoy the paternity right when the author of the photographs broadcast to illustrate the poetry should not. I believe that they should be treated in the same way. Television is a very important medium for authors, as it offers a unique opportunity to reach a wider audience. It would be unfair to take this opportunity away from photographers without very good reasons. I am not persuaded by the hon. Gentleman that there are difficulties for broadcasters in the Bill, and, regrettably, I must therefore resist the amendments.
      Mr. Fisher: It is late, and I accept that it is confusing when there are so many amendments. The Minister's brief to resist the case of photographers was a good one, but I was not making a case on behalf of photographers.
      Visual images are referred to in line 20 of clause 76, which amendment No. 9 seeks to delete. A broadcast for "Arena" or a similar arts programme, which showed in front of a camera a series of sculptures or paintings, would be a visual images broadcast. If the clause stands unamended, the moral rights of all artists involved would have to be recognised, and at the end of the programme there would have to be a long and tedious list of every artist represented in the documentary or programme. Surely that cannot be the Government's intention. I accept what the Minister has said about photographs, but could he deal with works of art that are broadcast during a television programme?
      Mr. Butcher: I am grateful for the hon. Gentleman's indulgence, especially at this time in our proceedings. I do not know whether the particular category I was referring to was the one that he wished me to deal with, but I did mention the point about waivers. I said that alternative arrangements could be made. It is a question of presumptions in the Bill. I believe that the arguments that I have adduced for one category are pertinent for the category that he mentioned.
      Amendment negatived.

    Clause 78

      EXCEPTIONS TO RIGHT
      Mr. Fisher: I beg to move amendment No. 11, in page 32, leave out lines 8 and 9.
      I believe that the Government have recognised, and the Minister has recognised in his remarks, that in Committee we had been staunch supporters of moral rights. Amendment No. 11 seeks to assert the moral rights for journalists. It is a pair with our amendments Nos. 4 and 3 that we discussed earlier, and, sadly, we were not able to persuade the Government to change their mind on that
      178
      occasion. However, it is important that we should go on record as saying that the journalists, having lost their effective economic copyrights because the Government refused to accept amendment No. 3, should retain at least their moral rights. Sadly, clause 78(3)(a) removes even their moral rights. It is a black evening for journalists when the rights that they enjoyed under the 1956 Act are not only being taken away in economic copyright, but when, at last, other classes and sectors of copyright owners are being granted moral rights. We applaud the Government for granting those rights but do not agree that the journalists, as employed authors, should be excluded.
      The Government have not had a good night in protecting the rights of journalists, but if they accepted amendment No. 11 it would be some sop to the journalists that their moral rights—their integrity tied up with their intellectual copyright—would be acknowledged. If the Minister does not accept this amendment, he will compound the felony of the Government's economic copyrights with the ending of their moral copyrights even before they have begun.
      Mr. Rowlands: Subsection (3) is the most obnoxious part of the Bill. It says that anyone who is an employee does not have moral rights over what he writes. It is a simple point, but it is the reason why we seek to delete it.
      I shall remind the House of what moral rights are. They are the rights of a person who writes or produces something to prevent distortion of his work by the owners—in this case by the owner of a newspaper or a magazine. Apparently, we give those rights to individuals who write on a freelance basis up to a point, but we do not give it to anyone who is employed. The notion that an employee has no moral rights over what he writes is one of the most obnoxious features of the clause.
      On various occasions it has been said that moral rights could not be given, because a person is writing for a newspaper on a daily basis, events are moving and there is a need to edit copy, and therefore what was actually printed was often a collective work. In some ways, I can understand the practical arguments of daily journalism, but when the removal of those rights is considered with subsection (6)(b)—which actually removes the moral rights of anyone who writes for a newspaper, magazine or a similar periodical—one finds that if one wrote an in-depth article as an employee of a quarterly magazine, which would have nothing to do with the instant nature of daily journalism, one would still not have moral rights over that work. It would still be possible for the editor of a quarterly magazine to distort, edit and change the whole nature and character of that in-depth article. If one takes 3(a) and subsection (6) together, that is the effect of the provisions of the clause.
      We should object strongly and press the Minister again to explain why all employees are not entitled to moral rights. Many newspapers, magazines and periodicals will carry reflective pieces which require the sort of research that should attract moral rights.
      I did not find the Minister at all convincing in Committee about subsection 3(a) or subsection (6). He got in a terrible tangle about what a periodical and a magazine are. We believe that an employee of a newspaper, magazine or periodical is perfectly entitled to moral rights over what he writes.
      1.30 am
      Mr. Doran: The 1981 Green Paper introduced the idea of moral rights. It was fairly specific about what a moral right was to be. It emphasised that it was to be quite separate from the economic right which attaches to copyright.
      There was no mention of any restriction of the moral right. The White Paper of 1986 used the same terms and said:
      "the Government proposes to legislate for moral rights as follows:

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

      (b)these moral rights will be independent of the economic rights, and will be exercisable only by the author."

      It then explained what would happen after the death of the author. There is no restriction to the right there. A moral right seems to fill the gap left by the Government's removal of copyright from journalists. I wonder what the Government find so objectionable about the author of a work, regardless of whether he has any economic rights on the basis of being the author, having such a right.
      We had a long debate in Committee about the impact of the law of defamation in this area. The Government are being disingenuous. I do not understand why such employees should be excluded from having a moral right. It is a concept I welcome.
      Mr. Butcher: As the hon. Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney (Mr. Rowlands) said, the issue has been debated at length. I am sorry that he did not find what I said in Committee convincing. The situation with regard to the paternity right now is not too dissimiliar from that which is proposed in the Bill.
      Local and national newspapers are not littered with bylines by right in the exercise of moral rights of authors over every piece that appears, and I have not heard Opposition Members argue that that should be the case. Their difficulty has been to find amendments that would not impose new conditions, not to say restrictions, on how newspapers have traditionally been put together.
      The question before us is whether we should unravel one of the basic principles of the Bill—the distinction we have made between the rights of employed authors and those of freelance authors. We have tried to produce a formula which recognises the needs of the market place and which defers, as it should at the appropriate moments, to the Berne convention. That is the basis of our approach. I feel that I can ask the House to resist the amendment, but I shall come back to that point in a moment.
      Mr. Fisher: Before the Minister leaves this point, will he widen his remarks? Once again, as in Committee, he has confined his examples to the newspaper industry, with some of the pressures of time and the difficulties that my hon. Friends have already referred to. We all acknowledge that there are genuine difficulties there, although we believe that they are not as great as the Government make out. Will the Minister accept that the way in which clause 76 is worded covers a range wider than just the newspaper industry?
      The curator of an art museum or gallery, for instance, might write the foreword of the catalogue for an exhibition, which will be a work of great scholarship, perhaps distilling a lifetime's work and understanding of a
      180
      particular artist or period of furniture. However, because that person would be an employed author, employed by the gallery, he or she would have absolutely no rights to be acknowledged at the beginning of the catalogue. Such work is as important as a PhD thesis, a doctorate or any other sort of learned treatise, but because the curator would be employed, he or she would not have any moral rights. Surely that cannot be what the Government intend. Will the Minister address the point that this issue goes far wider and has many more serious implications than for just the newspaper industry?
      Mr. Butcher: I was going on to address that point, but the hon. Gentleman began his remarks with a statement of fairly fundamental belief to his side of the House; and I was simply responding in like manner.
      To come to the point at issue and the broader implications, the Bill provides that where copyright vests in the employer of an author or a film director the paternity rights will not apply. Opposition Members appear to agree with us on film directors because their amendment leaves the position of directors unchanged, but not that of authors. I can see no justification for this distinction as I believe that exactly the same principles apply in each case.
      The House has accepted the general rule that the employer should own the copyright in a work created by his employee—in other words, the employer should be able to obtain the financial reward from the work and use it in any way that he likes. However, although economic and moral rights are separate, it is clear that the requirement to identify authors might well interfere with the freedom of the employer to use the work in the way he thinks best. A company issuing its annual report is making a corporate statement and it would not be appropriate to identify the author of that work in the manner that is required by clause 76. It is probable that the report is an amalgam of works of many different contributors. Even if the separate works could be identified, it would not be appropriate to list all the individuals concerned.
      In some situations, the provisions for assertion and waiver of paternity right could offer a way round the problem, but we do not think it would be appropriate to have to rely on these provisions in the employer-employee context. Apart from the matter of principle that I have mentioned, administering moral rights would create an extra burden on employers. Details of assertions and waivers would need to be kept up to date and associated with particular works. That in itself would be a complex task since the paternity right can be asserted or waived generally or in relation to any specified act or description of acts. Extra staff might be needed to cope with it.
      Mr. Rowlands: The Minister is resting his case on principles and clear distinctions between what he described earlier as employed and freelance writers—at least, that is what I thought he said. Will he confirm that a freelance writer making a contribution to a periodical, encyclopaedia or any collective work also loses his moral rights?
      Mr. Butcher: I shall be glad to deal with that and with the point about a curator. For the moment I shall continue my response to the hon. Gentleman, who is moving away from his amendment. Instead of using his paternity right to achieve greater public recognition, an employee might agree to waive his identification right only in return for extra money or improved conditions. This economic use of

      181
      the right would be no more justifiable than the exercise of copyright by employees. An employer should not have to buy the right to use a work for which he has already paid, nor should he be forced to choose between identifying the author or not using the work at all. That would happen if the employee refused to waive his paternity right.
      The only common-sense approach to avoid such problems is to disapply the paternity right for employees. As Opposition Members will know, it is for that reason that I must resist the amendment just as I resisted their blandishments, no matter how elegantly argued, in Committee. The nub of the matter is that the principle goes right through the Bill and is absolute. If a curator is an employee, no matter how learned, he would be caught by the moral rights provision in the Bill. I cannot give the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central (Mr. Fisher) the assurance that he seeks. The curator is an employee and as such has the advantages that I have listed in earlier debates. It is for him to deal with the matter when he accepts the normal conditions of employment.
      Mr. Rowlands: The Minister said that he would answer my question but he has made the distinction between an employee and a freelance. Am I right in thinking that a freelance writer for any periodical, dictionary, encyclopaedia or collective book of reference would not have moral rights?
      Mr. Butcher: The freelance writer has moral rights unless, as I said earlier, he decided in his contractual arrangements to waive them or if he enters into any other sort of waiver arrangement. We have made the distinction throughout the Bill between freelance and employed authors. With the exceptions that we discussed in Committee, moral rights apply to the freelance author. The hon. Gentleman will remember those exceptions, one of which was for the purposes of reporting current events. In general, we have not moved our position since Committee stage. The hon. Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney asked about work written for a newspaper or other periodical or for a collective work of reference. That does not enjoy the moral rights provided in subsection (6) of the clause and in clause 80(4).
      Mr. Fisher: The Minister has said several times that this is a matter of principle running throughout the Bill. Will he clarify that it is the intention of the Government, where possible, to stick by the Berne convention? Am I right in thinking that article 6 bis of that convention makes moral rights, the rights of paternity, absolute and does not make the exemptions that the Minister is making? Once we start breaking up the absolute integrity of moral rights, we lead ourselves into the difficulties with which the Minister is struggling.
      Mr. Butcher: Of course we defer to the Berne convention to the extent that we need to sign it in order to get appropriate protection for our works and our intellectual and industrial property rights in other countries. A convention is a convention and it is for national Governments to decide how far they go in slavish adherence to its provisions and in observing its spirit and practicalities.
      Earlier in the debate it became fairly clear that we have a duty to say to those who draft Berne convention provisions that our copyright reforms on matters such as music and time shifting and the levy are compatible with
      182
      that which Berne seeks to achieve. The question of moral rights has first been raised in the Bill. We have brought that forward because Berne invites us to do so. However, I cannot say that we shall accept lock, stock and barrel the argument that the hon. Gentleman's interpretation of Berne should be applied universally. He will find that in different nation states there are different routes to achieving the protection of the Berne convention.
      1.45 am
      Mr. Fisher: We are deeply dissatisfied and unhappy with the debate and with the Minister's response. He will recall that we have gone to some lengths—with great sincerity—to pay tribute to his handling of the Bill in Committee, which was conducted with great sensitivity, tact and perseverance through the varied and difficult briefs with which he had to deal. Our compliments to him have been absolutely sincere. On this occasion, however, he has let his high standards slip considerably, and we are most unhappy with his response.
      It is simply not good enough for the Government to say that although they stand by Berne they propose completely to disregard the spirit of article 6 bis, which is that moral rights are absolute rights for the author. We have acknowledged that there are difficulties in getting the right balance in economic copyright between the interests of industry, investors, consumers and users. We are all well aware that there are no right answers on that because the balance varies from industry to industry and from one set of circumstances to another.
      Moral rights are a simpler matter. Both on Second Reading and in Committee we welcomed the fact that the Government were introducing the concept of moral rights. Now, however, they are undermining and undercutting their good intentions by removing a person's moral rights simply because he is employed, so that he does not have the right to have his work acknowledged as the work of his intellect and as his intellectual property. That cannot be a principled view for the Government to take, and it is not to the credit of the Government or the Minister.
      Amendment negatived.
      Mr. Michael Morris: I beg to move amendment No. 276, in page 32, line 29, at end insert
      'or to any work created for the purposes of advertising'.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to take amendment No. 277, in clause 80, page 34, line 16, at end insert
      'or to any work created for the purposes of advertising'.
      Mr. Morris: The amendments deal with advertising. The first deals with the moral rights of the creator of an advertisement in relation to the identification in clause 76 and the exceptions to it in clause 78 and the second with the integrity of a piece of work, mentioned in clause 79, and the exceptions to it provided in clause 80, to which the amendment refers.
      I think that the House knows of my deep involvement with the world of advertising, which has lasted in a general sense for some 25 years. As someone who has tried to keep track of the Bill's proceedings—a task made all the more difficult by the fact that I was chairing another Committee—I venture to suggest that the reality of the world of advertising is a factor on which Ministers have not really had time to reflect.

      183
      Some of us would maintain that the central issue of ownership of copyright on commercially produced material should rest with person paying the bill and not with the artist, photographer, copywriter, visualiser or anyone else. In industry there is absolutely no difference between the role of the creator of advertising and that of reseach chemists, market researchers, production engineers, packaging people or anyone involved in the marketing of a product.
      The involvement of the creator of an advertisement is transitory, whereas a manufacture is far from transitory. Some of our great brands have been nurtured by generations of marketeers who have seen the gaps in a market, and identified opportunities arising from changes in taste or attitude—opportunities that have then been taken and backed by the resources of the company.
      The issue before us is even more tightly drawn. Amendment No. 276 deals with identification of credit. Exemption has been given to newspapers on the grounds that one cannot have a whole newspaper full of by-lines. I ask the Minister how on earth one can have a list of credits for a piece of packaging. How on earth, on a 15-second commercial, is one to list the producer, director, film company, dubbing studio, visualiser, copywriter, creative group head, sound studio, agency and others—all of whom are in some respects authors of the advertisement? By definition they should all have credit, but, frankly, that is unworkable and unreasonable. The idea is also unrealistic as regards press advertisements, many of which are worked on and created within a short deadline.
      In a previous incarnation I used to handle some of the Central Office of Information work, particularly in the role of standby agency. During the three-day week I remember that we produced layouts in the morning, got them approved by lunchtime and were running the advertisement the same night. On occasion I even used to write some of the copy out of sheer necessity. Who will get the credit in such a situation? In reality it should be absolutely no one.
      My other amendment refers to integrity of work. I accept the importance of that to a creative person. The advertising world has, as near as possible, a perfect market—a willing seller and a willing buyer. The creation of an advertisement is dependent on a good brief from the client or the agent; it is they who determine the boundaries of the product proposition, the media in which it will appear and the message that is to be conveyed. The advertisements for Guinness, for example, have changed dramatically over the years from the Toucan of the early years to the situation advertisements and so on. A brand also undergoes subtle changes and I do not believe that any advertiser can afford a creative prima donna to prevent the development of a brand.
      If the reporting of current events argument is to be accepted, it is clear that, on grounds of practicality, common sense and the need to ensure that our marketeers are unfettered, my amendment should be accepted.
      Mr. Butcher: The amendments propose to add to the list of exceptions to the paternity and integrity rights found in clauses 78 and 80. They would disapply moral rights to all works made for the purpose of advertising, and my hon. Friend the Member for Northampton, South (Mr. Morris) put his arguments well.
      184
      Moral rights are being introduced to give authors and film directors the means to protect their artistic reputation and integrity. That is particularly important if they have transferrred their economic rights, as is likely to be the case in works commissioned by an advertising agency. Careful consideration has been given to the provisions to try to give authors and directors a worthwhile level of protection while, at the same time, ensuring that moral rights do not create unnecessary burdens on users of copyright material.
      As far as the advertising industry is concerned, we feel that the Bill already provides acceptable safeguards. To begin with, the rights do not arise in relation to works created by employees. Moral rights will therefore arise only where works are made by freelance authors and directors, and then the paternity right has to be asserted before it can be effective, and this must be done in writing by the individual concerned. Further, clause 86 provides for the waiver of the rights and I believe that there is sufficient scope for mutually acceptable arrangements to be agreed.
      As we shall discuss shortly, special exceptions have been made for reporting current events and for newspapers and magazines. We felt that the need for news reporting to be unhampered by moral rights and the very tight deadlines that newspapers have to work within, merited specific exceptions. We do not believe that the same considerations apply in advertising. I accept that it will frequently be inappropriate for the advertisement itself to identify the authors concerned, but authors are just as aware of this as the agencies which commission them, and in the real world I do not believe that they would make life difficult for themselves by unreasonably asserting their rights. After all, they have a living to earn and could find that agencies will simply refuse to employ authors who make that kind of assertion.
      On the other hand, however, there are other ways in which advertisements may come to public attention. For example, awards are made for advertising excellence and it would be entirely reasonable for an author to require that his contribution to a prize-winning advertisement should be acknowledged when the results are published in the trade press.
      For these reasons, I do not accept that the Bill as drafted will cause difficulties. I hope that, in view of what I have said, my hon. Friend will feel able to withdraw the amendment. I have mentioned waivers, the need to assert and the issue of employees. Within that mix, and the workings of those who wish to continue to freelance into an agency, there is a formula that would protect my hon. Friend's colleagues and ex-colleagues in the advertising world from the sort of difficulties that they may fear.
      Mr. Michael Morris: I am grateful to my hon. Friend, especially for the point about the waiver of rights.
      There is a misunderstanding in the Department. The vast majority of work is put out. There is very little employee-related work. I still foresee difficulties, particularly with commercials, but I accept what my hon. Friend has said. We shall have to wait and see what happens; I think that at some later date there will be a need to amend this provision.
      Amendment negatived.

    Clause 79

      RIGHT TO OBJECT TO DEROGATORY TREATMENT OF WORK
      Mr. Bowis: I beg to move amendment No. 329, in page 33, line 13 after 'otherwise', insert 'unjustly'.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to consider amendment No. 330, in clause 103, page 43, line 37, at end insert—
      '(3) Where in an action under subsection (1) above the court finds that the plantiff's right under section 79 has been infringed but that the treatment complained of was not unjust in all the circumstances, it shall award to the defendant the costs of the action subject to taxation on the indemnity basis.'.
      Mr. Bowis: In Committee I sought to protect the right to justified criticism. These amendments—they are either or; I do not seek to have them both accepted—try to take that one little stage further. I ask my hon. Friend to consider them.
      I have in mind the problem of a hostile review which tries to show up inconsistencies of argument in an author's work and, to that end, juxtaposes extracts or quotations from it. Such extracts would, by definition, be incomplete. Equally, in a hostile review, they would necessarily be prejudicial to the reputation of an author.
      However, I submit that no distortion or mutilation is involved. Under the Bill, such a review, it would seem, could be actionable. I have tried to compare the Berne convention and the Bill. The convention does not make distortion an alternative to prejudicing an author's reputation: it makes it a prerequisite. In Committee, my hon. Friend kindly said he would look further into this matter and wrote me a letter which he arranged to be placed in the Library. He said:
      "In our view, it is difficult to conceive of a distortion or mutilation of a work which would not be prejudicial to honour or reputation."
      I do not disagree with that. My point is the other way around: something can certainly be prejudicial to an author without involving distortion or mutilation. The wording of clause 79(2)(b) is:
      "the treatment of a work is derogatory if it amounts to distortion or mutilation of the work or is otherwise prejudicial to the honour or reputation of the author or director."
      In the Berne convention, that "or" is "and".
      To overcome this problem, I have submitted two solutions. I hope my hon. Friend will consider at least one of them. Amendment 329 is the simpler of the two. It suggests inserting the word "unjustly" after "otherwise". Then there would be no doubt—if a review was unjustly prejudicial, it would be actionable. If it was not, it would not. Amendment No. 330 seeks to protect the position of people who are sued for derogatory treatment which the plaintiff may have deserved. That is a more complicated way of achieving what I propose. The word "unjustly" would, however, be simpler than legal retribution and indemnity. I hope my hon. Friend will consider such a simple amendment with favour.
      Mr. Butcher: The issue is familiar, but my hon. Friend's amendments are fairly recent. In the time that we have had to consider the two amendments, we have concluded that they would limit the scope of the integrity right to an unacceptable extent and would undermine the principle on which it is based. Clause 79 confers the integrity right: it is the right of the author or film director not to have his or
      186
      her work subjected to derogatory treatment. The treatment of a work is derogatory if it amounts to distortion or mutilation of the work or is otherwise prejudicial to the honour or reputation of the author or director.
      Amendment No. 329 would limit this by providing that the treatment would have to be "unjustly" prejudicial to honour or reputation. Following on from this, amendment No. 330 provides that in an action for infringement where the court finds that the integrity right has been infringed, but that the treatment was not unjust, the defendant would have to pay the costs.
      2 am
      We are already introducing quite a complex provision, and it will not always be easy to tell whether the modification of a work amounts to derogatory treatment. It would be difficult, if not impossible, then to decide whether the treatment was justly or unjustly prejudicial to the author or film director's reputation.
      The whole point of moral rights is to protect the author's artistic reputation, and if we allowed users, in modifying works, to prejudice the author's honour and reputation, there would be no point in having the integrity right. The amendment raises the question whether it is possible to have prejudice that is not unjust—surely all prejudice is unjust. Furthermore, the draconian measure suggested in amendment No. 330 would deter authors and film directors from suing for infringement, because, even if their integrity right was found to be infringed, they might end up having to pay the costs of the case.
      We have already gone a long way towards meeting the legitimate concerns about moral rights of those who use copyright works. We have employee exceptions, and current events and newspaper exceptions. Those, together with the waiver provisions, give plenty of scope for mutually acceptable arrangements on moral rights to be reached. For those reasons, I must resist my hon. Friend's amendments.
      My hon. Friend mentioned hostile reviews. The Bill prevents no one from expressing hostile opinions about a copyright work or from quoting extracts from it to support the argument. The work itself is not being distorted or mutilated in those circumstances. For that to be the case, the extracts chosen would have to be distorted so that they did not express what the author wrote.
      Mr. Bowis: My hon. Friend's latter point was helpful in terms of establishing what is a distortion. In the light of his remarks, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
      Amendment, by leave, withdrawn

    Clause97
      UNDERTAKING TO TAKE LICENCE OF RIGHT IN INFRINGEMENT PROCEEDINGS
      Amendment made: No. 166, in page 41, line 19, leave out from 'for' to 'shall' in line 20 and insert 'delivery up'. —[Mr. Butcher.]
    Clause 98

      RIGHT TO DELIVERY UP OF INFRINGING COPIES, &C.
      Amendment made: No. 167, in page 41, line 26, leave out from 'work' to end of line 41 and insert

      187
      'may apply to the court for an order that the infringing copy or article be delivered up to him or to such other person as the court may direct.
      (2) An application shall not be made after the end of the period specified in section(Period after which remedy of delivery up not available under Part I) (period after which remedy of delivery up not available); and no order shall be made unless the court also makes, or it appears to the court that there are grounds for making, an order under section(Order as to disposal of infringing copy or other article) (order as to disposal of infringing copy or other article)
      (3) A person to whom an infringing copy or other article is delivered up in pursuance of an order under this section shall, if an order under section(Order as to disposal of infringing copy or other article) is not made, retain it pending the making of an order, or the decision not to make an order, under that section.
      (4) Nothing in this section affects any other power of the court.'.—[Mr. Butcher.]

    Clause 99

      RIGHT TO SEIZE INFRINGING COPIES, &C.
      Amendments made: No. 168, in page 41, line 42, leave out subsections (1) to (5) and insert—
      '(1) An infringing copy of a work which is found exposed or otherwise immediately available for sale or hire, and in respect of which the copyright owner would be entitled to apply for an order under section 98, may be seized and detained by him or a person authorised by him.
      The right to seize and detain is exercisable subject to the following conditions and is subject to any decision of the court under section(Order as to disposal of infringing copy or other article).
      (2) Before anything is seized under this section notice of the time and place of the proposed seizure must be given to a local police station.
      (3) A person may for the purpose of exercising the right conferred by this section enter premises to which the public have access but may not seize anything in the possession, custody or control of a person at a permanent or regular place of business of his, and may not use any force.
      (4) At the time when anything is seized under this section there shall be left at the place where it was seized a notice in the prescribed form containing the prescribed particulars as to the person by whom or on whose authority the seizure is made and the grounds on which it is made.'.
      No. 169, in page 42, line 25, leave out subsection (8) —[Mr. Butcher.]

    Clause 100

      EXCLUSIVE LICENSEE TO HAVE SAME RIGHTS AND REMEDIES AS COPYRIGHT OWNER
      Amendment made: No. 170, in page 42, line 31, leave out subsections (2) and (3) and insert—
      '(2) His rights and remedies are concurrent with those of the copyright owner; and references in the relevant provisions of this Part to the copyright owner shall be construed accordingly.'.—[Mr. Butcher.]

    Clause 101

      COPYRIGHT OWNER AND EXCLUSIVE LICENSEE TO BE JOINED AS PARTIES TO INFRINGEMENT ACTION
      Amendments made: No. 172, in page 43, line 10, leave out This section does' and insert The above provisions do.
      No. 171, in page 43, line 11, at end insert—
      '(4) Where an action for infringement of copyright is bought which relates (wholly or partly) to an infringement in respect of which the copyright owner and an exclusive licensee have or had concurrent rights of action—
      188

      (a)the court shall in assessing damages take into account—

      (i) the terms of the licence, and

      (ii) any pecuniary remedy already awarded or available to either of them in respect of the infringement:

      (b)no account of profits shall be directed if an award of damages has been made, or an account of profits has been directed, in favour of the other of them in respect of the infringement; and

      (c)the court shall if an account of profits is directed apportion the profits between them as the court considers just, subject to any agreement between them;

      and these provisions apply whether or not the copyright owner and the exclusive licensee are both parties to the action.
      (5) The copyright owner shall notify any exclusive licensee having concurrent rights before applying for an order under section 98 (order for delivery up) or exercising the right conferred by section 99 (right of seizure); and the court may on the application of the licensee make such order under section 98 or, as the case may be, prohibiting or permitting the exercise by the copyright owner of the right conferred by section 99, as it thinks fit having regard to the terms of the licence.'.—[Mr. Butcher.]

    Clause 102
      PECUNIARY REMEDIES WHERE CONCURRENT RIGHTS OF ACTION
      Amendment made: No. 173, in page 43, line 12, leave out clause 102.—[Mr. Butcher.]
    Clause 104
      PRESUMPTIONS RELEVANT TO LITERARY, DRAMATIC, MUSICAL AND ARTISTIC WORKS
      Amendment made: No. 63, in page 44, line 10, leave out from 'of to ', and' in line 12 and insert 'section 153 (qualification by reference to country of first publication)'.—[Mr. Butcher.]
    Clause 105

      PRESUMPTIONS RELEVANT TO SOUND RECORDINGS AND FILMS
      Mr. Page: I beg to move amendment No. 269, in page 44, line 33, leave out 'to the public' and insert
      'either to the public, or as issued for purposes of performance in public or being broadcast or included in a cable programme service,'.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments: No. 270, in page 44, line 34, leave out 'author or director of and insert 'owner of copyright in'.
      Government amendment No. 280.
      No. 271, in page 44, line 36, at end insert
      ', or

      (c) that the film is protected by copyright in a specified country,'

      Government amendments Nos. 64 and 281.
      No. 272, in page 44, line 41, at end insert
      'or in the case of a film before the date on which the copies were issued for purposes of performance in public or being broadcast or included in a cable programme service.'.
      Government amendment No. 282.
      Mr. Page: The amendments in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Smith) are designed to strengthen the presumption of copyright ownership in relation to films. If I understand the Bill

      189
      correctly, it establishes certain presumptions with respect to sound recordings and films. The clause provides that a person named as the author or director on copies of a film issued to the public shall be presumed to be the author or director until the contrary is proved.
      It also provides that, where copies bear the statement that the film was first published in a specified year or in a specified country, the statement shall be presumed to be correct until the contrary is proved. The statutory provisions go some way towards assisting copyright owners to bring film piracy cases to court by saving them the time and expense of proving the name of the author, the date of publication and the country of publication. Sometimes these three facts are not enough in themselves. Without proof, a piracy case will fail.
      There are three gaps in the clause as it relates to films. The purpose of the amendments is to plug them, and thereby to ensure that the clause applies to every case of film piracy. The first gap is where the clause applies only when copies of films are issued to the public. That terminology includes the sale of video cassettes to the public, but it does not attach to copies of a film that are issued to cinemas for purposes of theatrical exhibition, which is how most feature films are first released. Nor does it attach to copies issued for showing on broadcast or cable television.
      The second deficiency in the clause as it relates to films is that it establishes only a presumption of authorship at the date of issue. The second amendment overcomes that problem by substituting the term "owner of copyright", as used in the presumption relating to sound recording, in place of the phrase "author or director." The effect of the amendment is to place films in exactly the same position as sound recordings.
      The third defect is that, while the presumption of publication in a specified year and country is usually sufficient to establish the subsistence of copyright in a published work, it is not sufficient in the case of an unpublished work. Therefore, the effect of the amendment will be to put unpublished films on precisely the same basis as published films. and sound recordings, both of which are entitled to a presumption of copyright subsistence under the clause as drafted, so long as they have been correctly issued.
      The four amendments plug the three gaps. I shall be most interested to hear whether my hon. Friend the Minister is prepared to accept these amendments, which would make the prosecution of piracy cases very much easier.
      Mr. Butcher: There has been much debate over the presumptions that should apply in civil proceedings for copyright infringement. We recognised that the Bill as introduced in another place went too far in providing that the court should presume generally that the plaintiff was the owner of copyright and that copyright subsisted in the work in question until evidence was produced to the contrary. We therefore dropped that clause from the Bill.
      Those who have urged us to restore it have tended to brush aside the fact that the old clause tended to put the onus on the defendant to prove his absence of liability rather than on the plaintiff to establish his case. They have also tended to overlook the fact that clauses 104 and 105 make provision for evidence in copyright cases, which will greatly assist the copyright owner in establishing the critical questions of subsistence and ownership.
      190
      My hon. Friend the Member for Hertfordshire, South-West (Mr. Page) has spoken about the presumptions that apply. I readily concede that clause 105 needs to go further in order to assist in the fight against piracy. That is what motivated my amendments Nos. 280, 281 and 282. I believe there is common ground between us and I hope that he will feel able to withdraw his amendments in favour of those standing in the name of my right hon. and learned Friend.
      The first deficiency in the existing presumptions is identified by my hon. Friend in amendment No. 269. In many cases, films remain unpublished, since copies are not issued to the public. Even in cases where copies are issued to the public in the form of videograms, this usually comes some time after cinema release and it is during the period before the issue of legitimate videos that the market for pirate videos is most bouyant. But if a pirate is caught, the existing presumption in clause 105 will not help. I believe the answer to this problem is as set out in amendment No. 282 rather than as in amendment No. 269.
      I must also resist amendment No. 271. I do not think the courts should be asked to rely on a statement as to the subsistence or otherwise of copyright under a foreign law. We have rejected a presumption that United Kingdom copyright subsists in the film in question; it would be curious if we were to presume on the existence of foreign copyright, about which we can know little. In any event, such a presumption would rarely be relevant in a British court. Nevertheless, I believe my amendments will give my hon. Friend what he wants and I hope he can accept them.
      As for amendment No. 64, we have come to recognise that the presumptions in clause 104 may not be ideally suited to computer programs. These are literary works, but their mode of exploitation is very different from books. The name of the author will normally appear on a book, but this is not normal practice in the case of a program. What is likely to appear is the name of the software house or company which owns copyright in the program and in this respect programs are more akin to sound recordings and films than they are to literary works.
      Amendment No. 64 will provide the owners of copyright in computer programs with presumptions that are analogous to those which are applicable to records and videos. I believe that the various amendments we have tabled will be of considerable assistance, both to the rights owners in prosecution of cases against pirates and in reducing the burden on the courts.
      Mr. Page: I thank my hon. Friend for his reply. As he correctly said, his amendments are fully superior to the ones that I have been advocating this evening, and go a long way to solving the problems that I have outlined. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
      Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
      Amendments made: No. 280, in page 44, line 34 leave out 'or' and insert—
      '(aa) that a named person was the owner of copyright in the film at the date of issue of the copies, or'.
      No. 64, in page 44, line 38, at end insert—
      '(2A) In proceedings brought by virtue of this Chapter with respect to a computer program, where copies of the program are issued to the public in electronic form bearing a statement—

      (a)that a named person was the owner of copyright in the program at the date of issue of the copies, or

      (b)that the program was first published in a specified country or that copies of it were first issued to the public in electronic form in a specified year.

      191
      the statement shall be admissable as evidence of the facts stated and shall be presumed to be correct until the contrary is proved.'
      No. 281, in page 44, line 39, leave out These' and insert 'The above'.
      No. 282, in page 44, line 41, at end insert—
      '(4) In proceedings brought by virtue of this Chapter with respect to a film, where the film as shown in public, broadcast or included in a cable programme service bears a statement—

      (a)that a named person was the author or director of the film, or

      (b)that a named person was the owner of copyright in the film immediately after it was made.

      the statement shall be admissible as evidence of the facts stated and shall be presumed to be correct until the contrary is proved.
      This presumption applies equally in proceedings relating to an infringement alleged to have occurred before the date on which the film was shown in public, broadcast or included in a cable programme service.'.—[Mr. Butcher.]

    Clause 108

      FORFEITURE OF INFRINGING COPIES, &C.
      Amendment made: No. 174, in page 46, line 1, leave out subsections (1) and (2) and insert—
      '(1) The court before which proceedings are brought against a person for an offence under section 107 may, if satisfied that at the time of his arrest or charge—

      (a) he had in his possession, custody or control in the course of a business an infringing copy of a copyright work, or

      (b) he had in his possession, custody or control an article specifically designed or adapted for making copies of a particular copyright work, knowing or having reason to believe that it had been or was to be used to make infringing copies,

      order that the infringing copy or article be delivered up to the copyright owner or to such other person as the court may direct.
      (2) For this purpose a person shall be treated as charged with an offence—

      (a) in England, Wales and Northern Ireland, when he is orally charged or is served with a summons or indictment;

      (b)in Scotland, when he is cautioned, charged or served with a complaint or indictment.

      (3) An order may be made by the court of its own motion or on the application of the prosecutor (or, in Scotland, the Lord Advocate or procurator-fiscal), and may be made whether or not the person is convicted of the offence, but shall not be made—

      (a) after the end of the period specified in section(Period after which remedy of delivery up not available under Part I) (period after which remedy of delivery up not available), or

      (b) if it appears to the court unlikely that any order will be made under section(Order as to disposal of infringing copy or other article) (order as to disposal of infringing copy or other article).'.—[Mr. Butcher.]

      No. 175, in page 46, line 19, leave out subsection (4) and insert
      '; and in Scotland, where an order has been made under this section, the person from whose possession, custody or control the infringing copy or article has been removed may, without prejudice to any other form of appeal under any rule of law, appeal against that order in the same manner as against sentence.'.
      No. 176, in page 46, line 21, leave out subsection (5) and insert—
      '(5) A person to whom an infringing copy or other article is delivered up in pursuance of an order under this section
      192
      shall retain it pending the making of an order, or the decision not to make an order, under section(Order as to disposal of infringing copy or other article).
      (6) Nothing in this section affects the powers of the court under section 43 of the Powers of Criminal Courts Act 1973, section 223 or 436 of the Criminal Procedure (Scotland) Act 1975 or Article 7 of the Criminal Justice (Northern Ireland) Order 1980 (general provisions as to forfeiture in criminal proceedings).'.
      No. 177, in page 48, line 14, leave out clause 113.—[Mr. Butcher.]

    Clause 114

      LICENSING SCHEMES AND LICENSING BODIES
      Amendments made: No. 65, in page 49, line 24, after 'only', insert
      '—

      (a)'.

      No. 66, in page 49, line 25, at end insert
      ',or

      (b) works made by, or by employees of, or commissioned by, a single individual, firm, company or group of companies.

      For this purpose a group of companies means a holding company and its subsidiaries, within the meaning of section 736 of the Companies Act 1985.'.—[Mr. Butcher.]

    Clause 115

      SCOPE OF GENERAL CONTROL OF LICENSING SCHEMES
      Amendment made: No. 67, in page 49, line 27, leave out 'general control' and insert
      'references and applications with respect to'.
      Amendments made: No. 68, in page 49, line 44, leave out 'hiring' and insert 'rental'.
      No. 69, in page 50, line 1, leave out subsection (2).—[Mr. Butcher.]

    Clause 116

      REFERENCE OF PROPOSED LICENSING SCHEME TO TRIBUNAL
      Mr. Lawrence Cunliffe: I beg to move amendment No. 302, in page 50, line 17, at end insert—
      '(5) ln the event that a proposed licensing scheme relates to the grant of copyright licences in any class of case in respect of which copyright licences have not previously been granted, then the operator of the proposed licensing scheme shall refer the proposed licensing scheme to the Copyright Tribunal and shall not seek to apply or implement any such proposed licensing scheme until the proceedings on the reference thereof are concluded.

      (6)(a) In the event that the provisions of a proposed licensing scheme would constitute a variation or replacement of an existing licensing scheme then the operator of the proposed licensing scheme shall refer the proposed licensing scheme to the Copyright Tribunal and shall not seek to apply or implement any such proceedings on the reference thereof are concluded.

      (b) Until the proceedings on the reference of any such proposed licensing scheme to the Tribunal have been concluded any such existing licensing scheme which would be varied, replaced or otherwise affected by the proposed licensing scheme shall remain in force.'

      Madam Deputy Speaker (Miss Betty Boothroyd): With this it will be convenient to take amendment No. 303, in clause 117, page 50, line 18, after '(1)', insert
      'Without prejudice to the provisions of section 116(5) and (6).'.
      Mr. Cunliffe: I shall say only a few brief words on amendment No. 302 and reserve amendment No. 303 on commitment to the Minister. I understand that the Minister has some sympathy with this matter, and that he will lend support to this moderate measure which is clearly designed to assist political and charitable working men's clubs for ex-service men and others dedicated to non-profit-making principles.
      I declare an interest in an association with some 6 million male and 4 million women members under the aegis of several associations. Obviously, we are concerned about various issues, including VAT on bingo and gaming machines, and the new Sunday licensing laws that discriminate against non-profit-making clubs. With great respect to the Government and the Minister, we hope that he will acknowledge that our interest is genuine and sincere and that, ultimately, there is a great deal of British social interest in the society that we cater for in the organisations that I have described. I commend to the Minister's discretion amendments Nos. 302 and 303.
      Mr. Butcher: What I am about to say is not a symptom of being demob-happy, but a symptom of a late reading of the amendment tabled by the hon. Member for Leigh (Mr. Cunliffe). I thank him for the way in which he moved the amendment, with the support of my hon. Friends who have spoken to me about it.
      We are in a rather unorthodox position, in that I am fairly sure that the first two thirds of the hon. Gentleman's amendment—subsections (5) and (6)—are probably defective. However, what he wishes to deliver—I believe on an all-party basis—is what is contained in subsection 6(b). On that basis we knowingly accept the defective amendment in the knowledge that we need to consult without commitment on paragraph (b) and what it implies. I can give the hon. Gentleman the undertaking that amendment No. 302 will be sent to another place, which will be charged with a drafting requirement, subject to prior consultations with the other interested parties.
      I hope that Hansard will accurately convey what I am trying to say to the hon. Gentleman. I think that he understands the gist of it. I thank the clubs that have made representations on an all-party basis and I thank the hon. Gentleman for bringing this to our attention. It was rather late in the day and, on the consideration I have been able to give at this late stage, I hope that what I have suggested will satisfy him.
      2.15 am
      Mr. Greg Knight: I hope and believe that the non-profit-making clubs organisations will welcome wholeheartedly the undertaking that my hon. Friend the Minister has given to the House. I hope, in the same spirit, that Opposition Members will agree that the House can accept amendment No. 302 without a Division and that the hon. Member for Leigh (Mr. Cunliffe) will not press amendment No. 303.
      Mr. Blair: We are grateful to the Minister for the indication he has given. We all recognise the tremendous importance of the clubs and the contribution they make to British society. We accept that there may be drafting difficulties, but I am sure that they can be ironed out at a later stage. The important thing is that the principle is
      194
      accepted and I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Leigh (Mr. Cunliffe) will be grateful to the Minister for that.
      Amendment agreed to.

    Clause 120

      APPLICATION FOR REVIEW OF ORDER AS TO ENTITLEMENT TO LICENCE
      Amendments made: No. 70, in page 51, line 47, leave out from 'scheme' to end of line 2 on page 52.
      No. 71, in page 52, line 5, leave out subsection (2) and insert—
      '(2) An application shall not be made, except with the special leave of the Tribunal—

      (a) within twelve months from the date of the order or of the decision on a previous application under this section, or

      (b) if the order was made so as to be in force for 15 months or less, or as a result of the decision on a previous application under this section is due to expire within 15 months of that decision, until the last three months before the expiry date.'.

      No. 72, in page 52, line 10, leave out from 'review' to end of line 13 and insert
      'confirm or vary its order as the Tribunal may determine to be reasonable having regard to the terms applicable in accordance with the licensing scheme or, as the case may be, the circumstances of the case.'.—[Mr. Butcher.]

    Clause 121
      EFFECT OF ORDER OF TRIBUNAL AS TO LICENSING SCHEME
      Amendment made: No. 73, in page 53, line 1, leave out subsection (5).—[Mr. Butcher.]
    Clause 122

      SCOPE OF GENERAL CONTROL OF LICENCES GRANTED BY LICENSING BODIES
      Amendment made: No. 74, in page 53, line 4, leave out
      'general control of licences granted'
      and insert
      'references and applications with respect to licensing'.
      No. 75, in page 53, line 14, leave out 'or'.
      No. 76, in page 53, line 18, at end insert
      '; and

      (c) all licences in relation to the copyright in sound recordings, films or computer programs so far as they relate to the rental of copies to the public;'.—[Mr. Butcher.]

    Clause 124

      REFERENCE TO TRIBUNAL OF TERMS OF EXISTING LICENCE
      Amendments made: No. 77, in page 53, line 32, leave out subsections (1) and (2) and insert—
      '(1) A licensee under a licence which is due to expire, by effluxion of time or as a result of notice given by the licensing body, may apply to the Copyright Tribunal on the ground that it is unreasonable in the circumstances that the licence should cease to be in force.
      (2) Such an application may not be made until the last three months before the licence is due to expire.'.
      No. 78, in page 53, line 39, at end insert—
      '(3A) If the Tribunal finds the application well-founded, it shall make an order declaring that the licensee shall continue

      195
      to be entitled to the benefit of the licence on such terms as the Tribunal may determine to be reasonable in the circumstances.'.—[Mr. Butcher.]

    Clause 125
      FURTHER REFERENCE OF TERMS OF LICENCE
      Amendment made: No. 79, in page 53, line 42, leave out Clause 125—[Mr. Butcher.]
    Clause 126

      EFFECT OF ORDER OF TRIBUNAL AS TO TERM OF LICENCE
      Amendment made:
      No. 80, in page 54, line 15, leave out Clause 126.—[Mr. Butcher.]

    Clause 127

      GENERAL CONSIDERATIONS: UNREASONABLE DISCRIMINATION
      Amendment made: No. 81, in page 54, line 41, leave out 'those other persons' and insert
      'licensees under other schemes operated by, or other licences granted by, the same person'.—[Mr. Butcher.]

    Clause 131

      LICENCES TO REFLECT PAYMENTS IN RESPECT OF UNDERLYING RIGHTS
      Amendment made: No. 82, in page 55, line 38, leave out 'hiring to the public' and insert
      'the rental to the public of'.—[Mr. Butcher.]

    Clause 131
      LICENCES TO REFLECT PAYMENTS IN RESPECT OF UNDERLYING RIGHTS
      Amendment made: No. 334, in page 55, line 40, after 'royalty', insert 'or other sum payable'.—[Mr. Butcher.]
    Clause 135

      POWER TO EXTEND COVERAGE OF SCHEME OR LICENCE
      Amendments made: No. 83, in page 57, line 32, leave out
      'general control of licensing schemes'
      and insert 'see section 115'.
      No. 84, in page 57, line 35, leave out from 'apply' to end of line 36 and insert '(see section 122),'.—[Mr. Butcher.]

    Clause 139

      STATUTORY LICENCE WHERE RECOMMENDATION NOT IMPLEMENTED
      Amendments made: No. 204, in page 61, line 7, after 'hire', insert' or'.
      No. 205, in page 61, line 7, leave out 'or distributed'. —[Mr. Butcher.]

    Clause 140

      ROYALTY FOR HIRING OF SOUND RECORDING, FILM OR COMPUTER PROGRAM
      Amendments made: No. 85, in page 61, line 19, leave out 'rate of royalty' and insert 'royalty or other sum'.
      No. 86, in page 61, line 20, leave out 'hiring' and insert 'rental'.—[Mr. Butcher.]

    Clause 141

      CERTIFICATION OF LICENSING SCHEMES
      Amendments made: No. 87, in page 61, line 42, leave out 'hiring' and insert 'rental'.
      No. 88, in page 62, line 5, leave out
      'clearly identifies the works to which it relates'
      and insert
      'enables the works to which it relates to be identified with sufficient certainty by persons likely to require licences'.—[Mr. Butcher.]

    Clause 142

      POWERS EXERCISABLE IN CONSEQUENCE OF REPORT OF MONOPOLIES AND MERGERS COMMISSION
      Mr. Fisher: I beg to move amendment No. 17, in page 62, line 39, at end insert
      'but such powers shall in no case be exercisable where to do so would contravene Article 9(1) of the Berne Convention (Paris Revision 1971).'.
      Madam Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to take Government amendment No. 283.
      Mr. Fisher: Amendment 17 would amend clause 142 to reconcile it with the Berne convention. At this late hour—or early hour—I shall not weary the House with a detailed submission. The Minister and his Department have received several opinions from the BBC. I have a substantial and fat opinion from Mr. Ian Brownlie QC, another from Mr. Hugh Laddie QC, and two more from Mr. E. P. Skone James. Together they present a formidable case that I understand that the Minister has already studied in great detail. He has taken all the finer points of those legal gentlemen's opinions.
      In brief, they say that clauses 142 and 97 are in conflict with the Berne convention and that, if clause 142 is enacted, it will prevent the United Kingdom from adhering to the Paris revision of Berne. I understand that the Government's view is that there is a potential conflict between Berne and the public interest. We certainly believe that that may not be the case and that the Berne convention takes account of public interest.
      We are convinced by the weighty documentation that has been given to us by the BBC and counsel's opinions, and believe that the only way to reconcile the matter is to amend clause 142 in the way that the amendment provides.
      Mr. Butcher: Amendments Nos. 17 and 283 are intended to ensure that the powers in clause 142 should not be exercised in contravention of the United Kingdom's international copyright obligations. However, Government amendment No. 283 is considerably more comprehensive in regard to the obligations to be met. Therefore, I hope that the hon. Gentleman will be willing to withdraw amendment No. 17 on the basis that our amendment is more comprehensive.
      Mr. Fisher: I am delighted that the learned opinions have convinced the Government so comprehensively. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
      Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
      Amendment made: No. 283, in page 62, line 42, at end insert—

      197
      '(2A) A Minister shall only exercise the powers available by virtue of this section if he is satisfied that to do so does not contravene any Convention relating to copyright to which the United Kingdom is a party.'.—[Mr. Butcher.]

    Clause 147

      JURISDICTION OF THE TRIBUNAL
      Amendment made: No. 89, in page 64, line 37, leave out from 'proceedings' to end of line 2 on page 65 and insert 'under—

      (a) section 116, 117 or 118 (reference of licensing scheme),

      (b) section 119 or 120 (application with respect to entitlement to licence under licensing scheme),

      (c) section 123, 124 or(Application for review of order as to licence) (reference or application with respect to licensing body),

      (d) section 137 (appeal against order as to coverage of licensing scheme or licence),

      (e) section 140 (application to settle royalty or other sum payable for rental of sound recording, film or computer program),

      (f) section 142(3) (application to settle terms of copyright licence available as of right),

      (g) section 185 (application to give consent for purposes of Part II on behalf of performer),

      (h) paragraph 5 of Schedule 6 (determination of royalty or other remuneration to be paid to trustees for the Hospital for Sick Children).'.—[Mr. Butcher.]

    Clause 149

      COSTS, PROOF OF ORDERS, &C.
      Mr. Michael Colvin: I beg to move amendment No. 239, in page 65, line 32, leave out subsection (1) and insert—
      '(1) The Copyright Tribunal may not order that the costs of a party to proceedings before it shall be paid by any other party.'.
      Madam Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to take the following amendments: No. 241, in page 65, line 32, leave out subsection (1) and insert—
      '(1) If the Copyright Tribunal considers that a party to proceedings before it has behaved unreasonably it may order that that party shall bear the whole, or such part as may be specified in the order, of the costs of any other party to those proceedings; and in that case the Tribunal may tax or settle the amount of the costs, or direct in what manner they are to be taxed; but in no other case may an order in respect of costs be made.'.
      No. 240, in page 65, line 33, after 'proceedings before it', insert
      '(other than those of a licensing body).'.
      Mr. Colvin: At this hour of the morning, I shall not take long in moving amendment No. 239, but I shall speak to amendments Nos. 240 and 241. They relate to clause 149 and the same subject, the costs involved in appearing before copyright tribunals for trade associations representing pubs and clubs, which are the National Licensed Victuallers Association in the case of public houses, and the Committee of Registered Clubs Associations—CORCA—in the case of clubs.
      I declare an interest as a licensee, although I must say that mine is a silent pub; there is no piped music. I always insist on drinking my beer in peace. I am also an adviser to the NLVA.
      The House will know that from time to time, fees for the licence to play music in pubs and clubs are negotiated between the trade associations and the Performing Rights
      198
      Society, the PRS. We have appreciated that, at times, the PRS can be extremely heavy-handed. For example, it recently tried to lay down a new club tariff that made no distinction between the profit-making disco type of club and the non-profit-making club such as the British Legion. Following an outcry and some powerful lobbying by CORCA, the increase for non-profit-making clubs has been limited to only 100 per cent. CORCA can be tough in its negotiations.
      With some justification, it is felt that the negotiations can be a little one-sided. If a matter is taken to the copyright tribunal, it is often costly for the loser, not just in terms of the new fees but costs. A trade association might try to reduce its costs by appointing a solicitor to represent it, but the PRS, which enjoys substantial resources, can field leading, and sometimes extremely expensive, counsel. The association might have costs awarded against it, so under the present system, and that which is proposed in the Bill, appeals are discouraged. Surely that is not just.
      My amendments would give some protection against heavy costs being awarded against an unsuccessful appellant. I could commend any of the three amendments to the House, but I moved No. 239 because it seemed to be the best, being a compromise between amendments Nos. 240 and 241.
      In effect, amendment No. 239 provides that in proceedings before the copyright tribunal, each party should pay its own costs in all circumstances. The House will appreciate that that is a proposition that can cut both ways. If a trade association were to succeed in proceedings before the tribunal, however handsomely, it would have to bear its own costs.
      Mr. Blair: I am following the hon. Gentleman's argument closely. I should like to know the present practice of the copyright tribunal. Does it make costs follow the event in the cases that he is describing—in other words, if a party loses, does it automatically pay the costs—or does it exercise discretion?
      Mr. Colvin: I believe that it operates on a discretionary basis. I want a provision written into the Bill to ensure that all the costs cannot be awarded against the appellant in some cases.
      Amendment No. 240 is throughout one-sided, in that it would ensure that a licensing body had always to pay its own costs while leaving the tribunal free to order that such a body should pay the costs of other parties as well. That may seem a bit steep, but it is not when we bear in mind the position of the licensing body—in this instance the PRS—that is responsible for forming and operating the licensing schemes.
      Amendment No. 241 is a qualified version of amendment No. 239. It sets out to ensure that the tribunal should not cast the costs of any party upon another party unless it considers that the other party has behaved unreasonably.
      Other amendments could be devised to give similar protection against the awarding of costs. Of the three amendments which I have tabled, I believe that No. 239 comes closest to that which is required. I consider it to be modest, sensible and just, and I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will accept it.
      Mr. Butcher: The amendments seek to limit in varying degrees the power of the copyright tribunal to order that

      199
      the costs of one of the parties to proceedings before it should be paid by the other. This power is already given to the performing right tribunal by paragraph 5 of schedule 4 to the Copyright Act 1956. Of course it would be wrong if the tribunal used it unfairly or so as to deter parties with a legitimate case from bringing proceedings, but there is no evidence at all that the performing right tribunal has acted in this way or that the copyright tribunal would be likely to do so.
      On the contrary, I understand that orders as to costs are made by the performing right tribunal extremely rarely. In the limited time available since my hon. Friend the Member for Romsey and Waterside (Mr. Colvin) tabled his amendments, we have been able to identify only one such case in recent years, where the originators were considered to have persisted with an application that was wholly misconceived after this fact had been made clear to them. Even in that instance the originators were asked to contribute only £250 towards the costs of the other party. Moreover, in making the award the tribunal specifically drew attention to the importance
      "that individual applicants should not be deterred from applying to it by apprehension of the possibility that very substantial costs might be awarded against them".
      The power in clause 149(1) is discretionary only and I am confident that the copyright tribunal can be trusted not to abuse it. The record shows that that is exercised only in exceptional circumstances, and I believe that that will continue to be the case. I see no reason to deprive the tribunal of this power, or to limit it in the ways provided by amendments Nos. 240 or 241. The possibility of frivolous and time-wasting applications or references occurring from time to time cannot be ruled out, and the power to make an order for costs in those circumstances is important. The provisions in the Bill regarding the copyright tribunal have been scrutinised by the Council on Tribunals and it has raised no objection to this provision.
      My hon. Friend hoped that I would be able to agree to the amendments. Regrettably, I cannot, and I hope that he will withdraw them for the reasons that I have given.
      2.30 am
      Mr. Colvin: With the leave of the House, I shall withdraw the amendments because the remarks of my hon. Friend the Minister have reassured me.
      I noted that the powers are already available in legislation and that orders for costs are rare in practice; I hope that that will continue. My hon. Friend the Minister obviously places much trust in the tribunal's activities, but, if things go wrong, I trust that he and his successor will keep a careful watch on matters. I notice that, on the same page as clause 149, clause 148 relates to the general powers of the Lord Chancellor to make rules in respect of the activities of the Copyright Tribunal. There is power to use secondary legislation under the statutory instrument procedure to make rules to govern the operation of the tribunal. Given that those reserve powers are available to the Government, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
      Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

    Clause 150
      APPEAL TO THE COURT ON POINT OF LAW
      Amendments made: No. 90, in page 66, line 13, leave out subsection (4).—[Mr. Butcher.]
    Clause 151

      QUALIFICATTON FOR COPYRIGHT PROTECTION
      No. 254, in page 66, line 27, leave out 'and 161' and insert
      '(Copyright in Acts and Measures), 161 and(Copyright in Parliamentary Bills)'.—[Mr. Butcher.]

    Clause 155

      COUNTRIES TO WHICH THIS PART EXTENDS
      Amendment proposed: No. 91, in page 68, line 31, leave out subsection (5).—[Mr. Butcher.]
      Madam Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss Government amendments Nos. 92,101,129 and 136.
      Mr. Blair: I should like a word of explanation, because clause 155 is important as it declares the jurisdiction, extent and application of this part of the Bill.
      I am not entirely sure what are the effects of the amendments, but if they are to extend or limit the territorial application of the Bill, we should be told.
      Mr. Butcher: The hon. Gentleman is correct.
      The five amendments together make three technical changes to the provisions in the Bill about extension of its effect to dependent terrorities.
      Clause 155 provides for the extent of part I of the Bill. Orders in Council may be made to extend the part to the Channel Islands, the Isle of Man or any colony. In a sort of mirror-image provision, paragraph 36(3) of schedule 1 provides for Orders in Council to repeal the extension of existing copyright law to the Channel Islands or the Isle of Man if they introduce their own copyright laws, as the Isle of Man is doing. In both cases, the orders are subject to the negative resolution procedure. The use of this procedure would be contrary to the principle that an Order in Council extending an Act of Parliament to a dependent territory is not subject to' parliamentary scrutiny. Amendments Nos. 91 and 136 therefore leave out the provision for the negative resolution procedure in those cases, thus bringing clause 155 and schedule 1 into line with clause 245, which deals with the extension of part 3 to dependent territories. I hope that that is a sufficient explanation for the hon. Gentleman.
      Mr. Rowlands: I was pleased to hear the Minister use the words "dependent territories," as I tried to move an amendment to the effect that that was the appropriate term. The Minister told me that it would require such immense legislative changes that he could not accept the amendment.
      Secondly, I ask the Minister the time scale in which he will implement this legislation. The Lego case—[Interruption.] My hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen, South (Mr. Doran) throws his hands up in horror because I have referred to the Lego case again. It was some years after the Lego case that the copyright legislation was applied to Hong Kong. Will there be a long time lapse between the implementation of the legislation domestically

      201
      and its application to dependent territories? It was in some of the dependent territories that battles were fought over design and copyright. The Minister will remember that it was in a dependent territory that the Lego battle was initially fought. It was the application of the legislation to dependent territories which led to that case.
      It would be useful if the Minister could give some idea of the speed or lack of speed with which the Bill will be applied to dependent territories. That can have profound effects on the copyright rights of companies if those cases are taken up in dependent territories.
      Mr. Butcher: It is, of course, up to the Governments of the independent territories to decide when the Bill should be extended, and it is not for us.
      Amendment agreed to.

    Clause 160

      CROWN COPYRIGHT
      Amendments made: No. 225, in page 71, line 10, at end insert 'calendar'.
      No. 256, in page 71, line 19, leave out from 'that,' to end of line 20 and insert
      'Parliamentary copyright subsists in the work (see sections 161 and(Copyright in Parliamentary Bills)).'.—[Mr. Butcher.]

    Clause 161

      PARLIAMENTARY COPYRIGHT
      Amendment made: No. 92, in page 72, line 12, leave out
      'the provisions of this Part extend'
      and insert 'this Part extends'.—[Mr. Butcher.]

    Clause 166

      RIGHTS AND PRIVILEGES UNDER OTHER ENACTMENTS OR THE COMMON LAW
      Amendment made: No. 257, in page 74, line 26, at end insert—
      '(5) The savings in subsection (1) have effect subject to section(Copyright in Acts and Measures) (4) and section(Copyright in Parliamentary Bills) (7) (copyright in Acts, Measures and Bills: exclusion of other rights in the nature of copyright).'.—|Mr. Butcher.]

    Clause 167
      GENERAL PROVISIONS AS TO CONSTRUCTION
      Amendment made: No. 178, in page 74, line 34, leave out 'such'.—[Mr. Butcher.]
    Clause 170

      MEANING OF PUBLICATION AND COMMERCIAL PUBLICATION
      Mr. Page: I beg to move amendment No. 273, in page 76, line 39, at end insert—
      '(7) In the case of a film, and notwithstanding subsection (4)(c) of this section, the issue of copies of the film for purposes of performance in public, or being broadcast or included in a cable programme service, constitutes publication.'.
      Amendment No. 273 adds to the definition of publication the release of a film for purposes of theatrical, broadcast or cable performances. At the moment, publication is defined as issue of copies to the public and
      202
      expressly excludes broadcasting or cable casting of a film from the definition. That has two consequences. First, a film that has been the subject of a theatrical release in the cinema or a first run showing on broadcast or cable television may not be considered a public work. I could be wrong in my reading of that, and I should be grateful if my hon. Friend could reassure me. However, if I am right, it would appear that only the sale of video cassettes to the public satisfies the definition of publication.
      Secondly, a foreign film that has only been shown in cinemas or broadcasts or on cable television in a foreign country is not eligible for copyright protection in the United Kingdom unless the copyright owner can prove that the author was a national of a country with which the United Kingdom had a copyright treaty at the relevant time
      By contrast, in the case of a published work, eligibility for copyright protection in the United Kingdom can be established more easily by showing that the work was first published in a country with which the United Kingdom had copyright treaty relations at the time of the first publication.
      Those rules place the owner of copyright in a foreign film at a significant disadvantage if he wishes to enforce those rights in an English court before the film has been published within the meaning of the Bill. The proof of nationality of the author is much more difficult and costly than trying to prove the place of the first theatrical or television release. I leave aside the difficulties of trying to prove the nationality of an author who is a production company incorporated in a country that may not meet the nationality requirements.
      I believe that the amendment overcomes those difficulties. It provides for the publication of films and it includes the issue of copies of the film for purposes of performance in public or being broadcast or included in a cable service. I hope that my hon. Friend will be able to reassure me that I am misreading the definitions, or that he will be able to accept the amendment.
      Mr. Butcher: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his explanation, as his amendment puzzled us considerably. I must tell him that the amendment is largely unnecessary, even in terms of its own objectives. Under subsection (l)(a) of the clause, the issue of copies of a film to the public, for whatever purpose, already constitutes publication, so the amendment is relevant only to the extent that the "group of persons" it refers to is not a sector of the public. That means that the effect of the amendment would be limited to cases where a copy of a film is issued to a group which does not constitute the public, but where the objective is nonetheless to give a public performance. That seems a very limited set of circumstances.
      I find the amendment enigmatic because my hon. Friend seems to be trying to make publication not a restricted act. Virtually all that is achieved by providing that in particular circumstances the issue of copies of a film constitutes publication is to ensure that the term of copyright starts to run from that date because, under clause 13, the term of copyright in a film expires 50 years from the end of the calendar year in which the film is released, and "released" includes when it is first published.
      I hope that my hon. Friend therefore accepts that the amendment is not entirely necessary.
      Mr. Page: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his explanation. I have some difficulty with the definition of what will be accepted as a publication, particularly as, for some reason, the clause goes out of its way to exclude
      "the broadcasting of the work or its inclusion in a cable programme service"
      in subsection (4)(iv).
      In view of my hon. Friend's assurance, however, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
      Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

    Clause 173

      MINOR DEFINITIONS
      Amendments made: No. 93, in page 77, line 29, leave out 'a'.
      No. 94, in page 78, line 3, leave out 'means' and insert 'includes'.
      No. 95, in page 78, line 4, leave out from 'having' to end of line 5 and insert 'authority to decide any matter affecting a person's legal rights or liabilities'.
      No. 96, in page 78, line 7, at end insert—
      '"rental" means any arrangement under which a copy of a work is made available—

      (a) for payment (in money or money's worth), or

      (b)in the course of a business, as part of services or amenities for which payment is made,

      on terms that it will or may be returned;'.—[Mr. Butcher.]

    Clause 174

      INDEX OF DEFINED EXPRESSIONS
      Amendments made: No. 179, in page 79, line 32, column 2, leave out 'Section 168' and insert 'Sections 100(2) and 168'.
      No. 258, in page 79, line 37, column 2, leave out 'section 160(2)' and insert
      'sections 160(2) and(Copyright in Acts and Measures) (3)'.
      No. 259, in page 80, line 39, at end insert
      'and(Copyright in Parliamentary Bills)' (6).
      No. 97, in page 80, line 55, at end insert—
      'rental section 173'.—[Mr.Butcher]

    Clause 190

      RIGHT TO DELIVERY UP OF ILLICIT RECORDINGS
      Amendment made: No. 180, in page 86, line 18, leave out from 'Part' to end of line 24 and insert
      'may apply to the court for an order that the recording be delivered up to him or to such other person as the court may direct.
      (2) An application shall not be made after the end of the period specified in section(Period after which remedy of delivery up not available under Part II); and no order shall be made unless the court also makes, or it appears to the court that there are grounds for making, on order under section (Order as to disposal of illicit recording)(order as to disposal of illicit recording).
      (3) A person to whom a recording is delivered up in pursuance of an order under this section shall, if an order under section(Order as to disposal of illicit recording) is not made, retain it pending the making of an order, or the decision not to make an order, under that section.
      (4) Nothing in this section affects any other power of the court.'.—[Mr. Butcher.]

    Clause 191

      RIGHT TO SEIZE ILLICIT RECORDINGS
      Amendments made: No. 181, in page 86, line 25, leave out subsection (1) to (5) and insert—
      '(1) An illicit recording of a performance which is found exposed or otherwise immediately available for sale or hire, and in respect of which a person would be entitled to apply for an order under section 190, may be seized and detained by him or a person authorised by him.
      The right to seize and detain is exercisable subject to the following conditions and is subject to any decision of the court under section(Order as to disposal of illicit recording) (order as to disposal of illicit recording).
      (2) Before anything is seized under this section notice of the time and place of the proposed seizure must be given to a local police station.
      (3) A person may for the purpose of exercising the right conferred by this section enter premises to which the public have access but may not seize anything in the possession, custody or control of a person at a permanent or regular place of business of his and may not use any force.
      (4) At the time when anything is seized under this section there shall be left at the place where it was seized a notice in the prescribed form containing the prescribed particulars as to the person by whom or on whose authority the seizure is made and the grounds on which it is made.'.
      No. 182, in page 87, line 8, leave out subsection (8).—[Mr. Butcher.]

    Clause 192

      MEANING OF "ILLICIT RECORDING"
      Amendments made: No. 183, in page 87, line 20, leave out 'criminal liability and forfeiture' and insert
      'offences and orders for delivery up in criminal'.
      No. 184, in page 87, line 29, at end insert
      'paragraph 12(2) (recordings of performance in electronic form retained on transfer of principal recording),'.—[Mr. Butcher.]

    Clause 194

      FORFEITURE OF ILLICIT RECORDINGS
      Amendments made: No. 185, in page 88, line 37, leave out subsections (1) and (2) and insert—
      '(1) The court before which proceedings are brought against a person for an offence under section 193 may, if satisfied that at the time of his arrest or charge he had in his possession, custody or control in the course of a business an illicit recording of a performance, order that it be delivered up to a person having performers' rights or recording rights in relation to the performance or to such other person as the court may direct.
      (2) For this purpose a person shall be treated as charged with an offence—

      (a) in England, Wales and Northern Ireland, when he is orally charged or is served with a summons or indictment;

      (b)in Scotland, when he is cautioned, charged or served with a complaint or indictment.

      (3) An order may be made by the court of its own motion or on the application of the prosecutor (or, in Scotland, the Lord Advocate or procurator-fiscal), and may be made whether or not the person is convicted of the offence, but shall not be made—

      (a)after the end of the period specified in section(Period after which remedy of delivery up not available under Part II) (period after which remedy of delivery up not available), or

      (b)if it appears to the court unlikely that any order will be made under section(Order as to disposal of illicit recording) (order as to disposal of illicit recording).'.

      No. 186, in page 89, line 2, leave out subsection (4) and insert

      205
      '; and in Scotland, where an order has been made under this section, the person from whose possession, custody or control the illicit recording has been removed may, without prejudice to any other form of appeal under any rule of law, appeal against that order in the same manner as against sentence.'.
      No. 187, in page 89, line 4, leave out subsection (5) and insert—
      '(5) A person to whom an illicit recording is delivered up in pursuance of an order under this section shall retain it pending the making of an order, or the decision not to make an order, under section(Order as to disposal of illicit recording).
      (6) Nothing in this section affects the powers of the court under section 43 of the Powers of Criminal Courts Act 1973, section 223 or 436 of the Criminal Procedure (Scotland) Act 1975 or Article 7 of the Criminal Justice (Northern Ireland) Order 1980 (general provisions as to forfeiture in criminal proceedings).'.—[Mr. Butcher.]

    Clause 198
      SUPPLEMENTARY PROVISIONS WITH RESPECT TO FORFEITURE ORDERS
      Amendment made: No. 188, in page 89, line 43, leave out clause 198.—[Mr. Butcher.]
    Clause 222

      RIGHT TO DELIVERY UP OF INFRINGING ARTICLES, &C
      Amendment made: No. 189, in page 99, line 8, leave out from 'question' to end of line 13 and insert
      'may apply to the court for an order that the infringing article or other thing be delivered up to him or to such other person as the court may direct.
      (2) An application shall not be made after the end of the period specified in the following provisions of this section; and no order shall be made unless the court also makes, or it appears to the court that there are grounds for making, an order under section(Order as to disposal of infringing article, &c).
      (3) An application for an order under this section may not be made after the end of the period of six years from the date on which the article or thing in question was made, subject to subsection (4).
      (4) If during the whole or any part of that period the design right owner—

      (a)is under a disability, or

      (b)is prevented by fraud or concealment from discovering the facts entitling him to apply for an order,

      an application may be made at any time before the end of the period of six years from the date on which he ceased to be under a disability or, as the case may be, could with reasonable diligence have discovered those facts.
      (5) In subsection (4) "disability"—

      (a)in England and Wales, has the same meaning as in the Limitation Act;

      (b)in Scotland, means legal disability within the meaning of the Prescription and Limitation (Scotland) Act 1973;

      (c)in Northern Ireland, has the same meaning as in the Statute of Limitations (Northern Ireland) 1958.

      (6) A person to whom an infringing article or other thing is delivered up in pursuance of an order under this section shall, if an order under section(Order as to disposal of infringing article, &c.)is not made, retain it pending the making of an order, or the decision not to make an order, under that section.
      (7) Nothing in this section affects any other power of the court.'.—[Mr. Butcher.]

    Clause 223
      SUPPLEMENTARY PROVISIONS WITH RESPECT TO FORFEITURE ORDERS
      Amendment made: No. 190, in page 99, line 14, leave out clause 223.—[Mr. Butcher.]
    Clause 225

      RIGHTS AND REMEDIES OF EXCLUSIVE LICENSEE
      Amendment made: No. 191, in page 100, line 19, leave out subsections (2) to (4) and insert—
      '(2) His rights and remedies are concurrent with those of the design right owner; and references in the relevant provisions of this Part to the design right owner shall be construed accordingly.'.—[Mr. Butcher.]

    Clause 226

      PROVISIONS WITH RESPECT TO CONCURRENT RIGHTS OF ACTION
      Amendment made: No. 192, in page 101, line 8, at end insert—
      '(5) The design right owner shall notify any exclusive licensee having concurrent rights before applying for an order under section 222 (order for delivery up of infringing article, &c); and the court may on the application of the licensee make such order under that section as it thinks fit having regard to the terms of the licence.'.—[Mr. Butcher.]

    Clause 228
      LICENCES AVAILABLE IN LAST FIVE YEARS OF DEISIGN RIGHT
      Amendment made: No. 98, in page 101, line 18, leave out 'any act' and insert 'anything.—[Mr. Butcher.]
    Clause 230

      UNDERTAKING TO TAKE LICENCE OF RIGHT IN INFRINGEMENT PROCEEDINGS
      Amendment made: No. 193, in page 102, line 19, leave out
      'the forfeiture of any articles'
      and insert 'delivery up'.—[Mr. Butcher.]

    Clause 231

      CROWN USE OF DESIGNS
      Amendment made: No. 99, in page 102, line 44, leave out from 'realm' to 'or' in line 46 and insert
      ', in pursuance of an agreement or arrangement to which the government of that country and Her Majesty's Government in the United Kingdom are parties;'.—[Mr. Maude.]

    Clause 242

      REFERENCE OF DISPUTES RELATING TO CROWN USE
      Amendments made: No. 335, in page 108, line 28, leave out 'or'.
      No. 336, in page 108, line 29, at end insert
      ', or

      (c) section (Crown use of design right: compensation for loss of profit) (Crown use: compensation for loss of profit),'.

      No. 100, in page 109, line 15, leave out 'a' and insert 'any'.—[Mr. Maude.]

    Clause 245

      COUNTRIES TO WHICH THIS PART EXTENDS
      Amendment made: No 101, in page 110, line 26, at end insert—
      '(5) Where a country to which this Part extends ceases to be a colony of the United Kingdom, it shall continue to be treated as such a country for the purposes of this Part until

      (a) an Order in Council is made under section 246 designating it as a country enjoying reciprocal protection, or

      (b) an Order in Council is made declaring that it shall cease to be so treated by reason of the fact that the provisions of this Part as part of the law of that country have been amended or repealed.

      (6) A statutory instrument containing an Order in Council under subsection (5)(b) shall be subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament.'. —[Mr. Maude]

    Clause 253
      MINOR DEFINITIONS
      Amendment made: No. 102, in page 112, line 11, leave out 'a'.—[Mr. Maude.]
    Clause 254

      INDEX OF DEFINED EXPRESSIONS
      Amendments made: No. 194,in page 113,line l, column
      2, leave out 'Section 248' and insert 'Section 225(2) and 248'.
      No. 337, in page 113, line 5, at end insert
      'government department concerned (in section 231(5) relation to Crown use)'.—[Mr. Maude.]

    Clause 255

      REGISTRABLE DESIGNS
      2.45 am
      Mr. Rowlands: I beg to move amendment No. 326, in page 113, line 26, after 'eye', insert
      'of persons acquiring or using the article'.
      Madam Deputy Speaker: With this, it will be convenient to discuss the following: Amendment No. 325, in page 113, line 41, leave out subsection (3).
      Government amendment No. 103.
      Mr. Rowlands: Important issues arise from my amendment. The Minister will recall that we covered this course and discussed this issue in Committee on 16 June when we discussed what was required to attract registered design right. The Minister stated that the Government wanted to
      "ensure that purely functional designs do not qualify for the longer and stronger protection given by the Registered Designs Act 1949".—[Official Report, Standing Committee E, 16 June 1988; c. 621.]
      Then, he stated that we had to show that not only were the articles that would attract registered design aesthetically pleasing in themselves, but that they made an impact on the purchaser. We had a considerable discussion about the basis on which one could decide how to define whether a purchaser had bought an article on the grounds of the attraction of its design. That is what new section 1(3) attempts to do.
      208
      The clause meets the problem of whether a purely functional design could attract a registered design right. That is barred in subsection (l)(b)(i) of the new section 1 in clause 255. Therefore, there is no problem on that front, as we have already covered ourselves on that. However, it is possible that a problem will arise in connection with subsection (3) of clause 255.
      I understand from the advice that I have received that under the law as it stands, the court must have regard to the eye of the customer when deciding whether an article attracts a registered design right. It was in the case of Amp v. Utilex in 1972 that that principle was established. Therefore, the idea that one must go beyond the aesthetic appeal and prove and demonstrate that the design would attract the purchaser in such a way as to qualify for a registered design right, is already enshrined in case law, and in existing law. It is under subsection (3) as it was drafted that we believe that problems might arise.
      I have referred to cases where the number of articles that may attract design right may be ruled out under subsection (3) on the ground that it would be difficult to prove that anyone had had his design to purchase certain articles affected by the design itself. I have argued that that would lead to greater confusion and that, even worse than confusion, it might rule out whole series of articles which could attract a registered design right under existing law but might not do so as a result of subsection (3).
      In column 623 the Minister said that he could not see any difficulty as to why a telephone or even a computer—I am sure that the hon. Member for Torridge and Devon, West (Miss Nicholson) will be interested in this—would not attract a registered design right and that he believed that this subsection would not rule that out.
      I cast doubt then in Committee and do so again now on whether that would be the case. How would one prove whether the purchaser of hi-fi equipment, a computer or a telephone had been materially affected in making the decision to purchase by the design as opposed to the many functional and pricing issues? Does one buy a computer because of its design, its purely functional character or its price? Those issues are raised by clause 255(3), which says:
      "A design shall not be registered in respect of an article if the appearance of the article is not material, that is, if aesthetic considerations are not taken into account to a material extent by persons acquiring or using the article,"
      It is the phrase "material extent" that worried me, and I think that it worried others.
      Many designs might not qualify for registered design right because it could not be proved that the purchase had been made as result of the material extent to which the aesthetic appeal of an article had attracted the purchaser. My two amendments seek to return to that argument, first by deleting subsection (3) and secondly by underpinning what we think is the existing law as a result of the 1972 Amp v. Utilex case. Amendment No. 326 says:
      "after 'eye', insert 'of persons acquiring or using the article'."
      That makes it quite clear not just that one must take into account some theoretical aesthetic appeal but that the appeal must have some impact on the consumer.
      The amendment reinforces the law as we think it stands, and as the Government intend. We are worried about the nature of clause 255(3). The Government have tabled amendment No. 103, which introduces the word "normally". I wait with bated breath to hear from the Minister whether the amendment meets the worry that I expressed in Committee. If he can say that, I shall be

      209
      happy to withdraw my amendment. We are on solid ground in worrying the Minister and the House about the potential impact of subsection (3) and the broad reference to the material extent to which purchases are affected by aesthetic design.
      Mr. Butcher: We are aware that the hon. Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney (Mr. Rowlands) does not like new section 1(3) of the Registered Designs Act 1949. However, it will not produce any significant change to the law as it stands following the recent Lego case, which I know has been keeping him awake for at least 12 months.
      As I explained in Committee, the new section 1(3) is intended to make it clear that the question to be answered is not simply whether something has eye appeal in an abstract sense, but whether the eye appeal has a real impact on purchasers. It is important that designs of essentially functional articles are not registered, and the registry needs a workable test if it is to exclude essentially functional designs.
      We are, of course, proposing a small change ourselves so that the test would be whether customers normally—the word to which the hon. Gentleman drew attention—take aesthetic appearance into account when they acquired articles of the kind in question. This is essentially the test stated by the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council in its recent judgment in the Lego case. We want to make this explicit so that the designs registry has a workable test that it can apply. That would be the difficulty with the hon. Gentleman's proposal. It would mean that we would still have a law which does not explicitly make clear what is required. That would be a mistake.
      I am satisfied that there will be no problem about the clarity of the provision. I hope that that statement will not be held against me in future. When someone applies to register a design for a particular article, what will have to be decided is whether the aesthetic appearance of that kind of article normally matters to the customer. In other words, do customers normally care about the appearance of the article?
      The fact that they may care as much, or even more, about other things is neither here nor there. All we want to know is whether aesthetic appearance normally matters, and in most cases there will be no doubt. In a few cases, however, there will be a doubt, and the registry will ask for evidence. Given that the reward is a registration giving a 25-year monopoly, I do not think that it is too much to ask applicants to follow such procedures in doubtful cases. The test is there to prevent essentially functional articles, such as internal structural girders, from being registered. It is not there to make life difficult or to limit unreasonably what can be registered, and I am confident that it will not do so.
      Mr. Rowlands: The Minister is being extremely helpful, I think. Is the word "normally" being introduced to qualify the words "to a material extent"? We were worried that the requirement was broad and sweeping, but if the Minister can confirm that the word "normally" is intended to limit and restrict the concept of "to a material extent", I shall be more than happy to withdraw the amendment.
      Mr. Butcher: I am divining what I think is an affirmative answer to the hon. Gentleman's question.
      Mr. Rowlands: In that case, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
      Amendment, by leave withdrawn.
      Amendments made: No. 103, in page 113, line 43, leave out from 'not' to end of line 44 and insert
      'normally taken into account to a material extent by persons acquiring or using articles of that description'.
      No. 338, in page 114, line 15, leave out '256' and insert
      ''(Provisions with respect to certain designs registered before commencement)'.—[Mr. Butcher.]

    Clause 256
      PROVISIONS WITH RESPECT TO CERTAIN DESIGNS REGISTERED BEFORE COMMENCEMENT
      Amendment made: No. 104, in page 114, line 17, leave out clause 256.—[Mr. Butcher.]
    Clause 258

      RIGHT GIVEN BY REGISTRATION OF DESIGN
      Mr. Butcher: I beg to move Government amendment No. 105, in page 116, line 11, at end insert—
      '(6) The right in a registered design is not infringed by the reproduction of a feature of the design which, by virtue of section 1(1)(b), is left out of account in determining whether the design is registrable.'.
      Mr. Doran: I am not sure whether at this time in the morning I can articulate my argument. The amendment appears to introduce a "must match" type provision into registered design right. Read together with new section 1(1)(b) of the 1949 Act, it seems to open up a whole new area of potential conflict and dispute. Can the Minister explain how he expects the proposal to operate in practice?
      Mr. Butcher: The amendment is needed to overcome an unwanted effect of a part of the reasoning in the Lego judgment. Part of the reasoning in that judgment was that a design qualifies for registered designs protection if it includes any features that are not excluded by the definition of "design" in section 1 of the 1949 Act, and of course it is quite right that non-excluded features should be protected. However, according to Lego, what is registered, and therefore what is protected, is the whole of the design, including any excluded features. That would mean that "must match" and any other excluded features would in fact be protected, provided only that the design of which they form a part contains at least one non-excluded feature. This is, of course, the wrong result.
      The aim of the "must match" exclusion is to allow copying of those features of a design for which there is no design freedom while protecting those features where there is design freedom. It is therefore necessary to make a specific provision to ensure that "must match" and other excluded kinds of design features do not get protection by the back door. The amendment makes the necessary provision.
      Amendment agreed to.

    Clause 259

      DURATION OF RIGHT IN REGISTERED DESIGN
      Mr. Butcher: I beg to move amendment No. 106, in page 116, line 19, leave out from 'design' to 'if in line 28 and insert—
      (2) The period for which the right subsists may be extended for a second, third, fourth and fifth period of five years, by applying to the registrar for an extension and paying the prescribed renewal fee.

      211
      (3) If the first, second, third or fourth period expires without such application and payment being made, the right shall cease to have effect; and the registrar shall, in accordance with rules made by the Secretary of State, notify the proprietor of that fact.
      (3A)'.
      Madam Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to take the following Government amendments: Nos. 107, 151 to 153, 295 and 154.
      Mr. Blair: I would be grateful if the Minister could confirm that nothing in this group or the next group of amendments is inconsistent with our discussions in Committee, because they follow the pattern of points raised in Committee and concerns expressed to the Minister then.
      Mr. Butcher: The amendments follow up the amendments that the hon. Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair) and his hon. Friends tabled in Committee and which I agreed to consider. They will require the design registry to send reminders when renewals are overdue and will allow registered designs that have inadvertently been allowed to lapse to be restored. We are also taking the opportunity to revise and update the corresponding provisions of the Patents Act 1977.
      3 am
      Mr. Rowlands: The amendments are important because they touch on the duration of rights in registered design. Do the amendments have any effect upon existing design rights? Under clause 259(2), existing design rights will be unable to qualify for the extra period.
      When the patent law was changed, a concession was given. Do the amendments offer any hope that some extension will be granted to those holding existing design rights? If people enjoy design rights under the existing 15-year rule, surely there is no harm in offering a transitional extension to that right as we move over to the 25-year term. Such an extension was offered during the transitional period when the patent law was changed.
      Mr. Butcher: Hon. Members will notice that we are also proposing some changes to the existing patent restoration provision. Our examination of registered designs has revealed that there are a few problems with the existing patent provision, which concern the way in which restoration is backdated and the protection given to those who take steps to work an invention that is the subject of a lapsed right, before an application for restoration is published.
      The amendments deal with those matters, which are also embodied in the new registered design provisions. Amendment No. 154 also makes corresponding changes to section 64 of the Patents Act 1977 because, although it concerns a different subject, its drafting is similar to that in the restoration provisions.
      It is clear from all this that I have reason to be particularly grateful to the Opposition. Not only have they suggested a worthwhile addition to the registered design provisions, but they have enabled us to attend to some necessary remedial work in the patents provisions. In reply to the hon. Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney (Mr. Rowlands), a number of the amendments that I have
      212
      moved formally are amendments that I believe he would have welcomed in response to questions asked in Committee.
      Mr. Rowlands: In clause 259(2), none of the extensions to 25 years applies to the existing 15-year registered design right. Will the amendments help those who enjoy an existing registered design right? That right will last for 15 years under the existing provisions, but could be 25-year design right under the new terms. Under subsection (2), none of the existing registered design rights would enjoy any additional years, as provided for during the changeover in patent law.
      Mr. Butcher: We contemplated whether the amendment to the Registered Designs Act 1949 should contain transitional provisions, since no such provisions presently exist. Present registration can be renewed, at most, twice only. The complexity of any amendment seems to outweigh any benefit.
      Amendment agreed to.
      Amendment made: No. 107, in page 117, line 11, at end insert—
      'Restoration of lapsed right in design
      8A.—(1) Where the right in a registered design has expired by reason of a failure to extend, in accordance with section 8(2) or (3A), the period for which the right subsists, an application for the restoration of the right in the design may be made to the registrar within the prescribed period.
      (2) The application may be made by the person who was the registered proprietor of the design or by any other person who would have been entitled to the right in the design if it had not expired; and where the design was held by two or more persons jointly, the application may, with the leave of the registrar, be made by one or more of them without joining the others.
      (3) Notice of the application shall be published by the registrar in the prescribed manner.
      (4) If the registrar is satisfied that the proprietor took reasonable care to see that the period for which the right subsisted was extended in accordance with section 8(2) or (3A), he shall, on payment of any unpaid renewal fee and any prescribed additional fee, order the restoration of the right in the design.
      (5) The order may be made subject to such conditions as the registrar thinks fit, and if the proprietor of the design does not comply with any condition the registrar may revoke the order and give such consequential directions as he thinks fit.
      (6) Rules altering the period prescribed for the purposes of subsection (1) may contain such transitional provisions and savings as appear to the Secretary of State to be necessary or expedient.
      Effect of order for restoration of right
      8B.—(1) The effect of an order under section 8A for the restoration of the right in a registered design is as follows.
      (2) Anything done under or in relation to the right during the period between expiry and restoration shall be treated as valid.
      (3) Anything done during that period which would have constituted an infringement if the right had not expired shall be treated as an infringement—

      (a)if done at a time when it was possible for an application for extension to be made under section 8(3A); or

      (b)if it was a continuation or repetition of an earlier infringing act.

      (4) if after it was no longer possible for such an application for extension to be made, and before publication of notice of the application for restoration, a person—

      (a)began in good faith to do an act which would have constituted an infringement of the right in the design if it had not expired, or

      (b)made in good faith effective and serious preparations to do such an act,

      213
      he has the right to continue to do the act or, as the case may be, to do the act, notwithstanding the restoration of the right in the design; but this does not extend to granting a licence to another person to do the act.
      (5) If the act was done, or the preparations were made, in the course of a business, the person entitled to the right conferred by subsection (4) may—

      (a)authorise the doing of that act by any partners of his for the time being in that business, and

      (b)assign that right, or transmit it on death (or in the case of a body corporate on its dissolution), to any person who acquires that part of the business in the course of which the act was done or the preparations were made.

      (6) Where an article is disposed of to another in exercise of the rights conferred by subsection (4) or subsection (5), that other and any person claiming through him may deal with the article in the same way as if it had been disposed of by the registered proprietor of the design.
      (7) The above provisions apply in relation to the use of a registered design for the services of the Crown as they apply in relation to infringement of the right in the design.'.—[Mr. Butcher.]

    Clause 265

      PERSONS ENTITLED TO DESCRIBE THEMSELVES AS PATENT AGENTS
      Amendments made: No. 108, in page 120, line 35, leave out 'words' and insert 'expressions'.
      No. 284, in page 120, line 38, leave out subsection (6).
      No. 285, in page 120, line 44, at end insert—
      '(7) This section has effect subject to—

      (a)section 266 (persons entitled to describe themselves as European patent attorneys, &c), and

      (b)section(Use of the term "patent attorney": supplementary provisions.) (1) (use of term patent attorney" in reference to solicitors).'—[Mr. Butcher.]

    Clause 266

      PERSONS ENTITLED TO DESCRIBE THEMSELVES AS EUROPEAN PATENT ATTORNEYS, &C.
      Amendments made: No. 109, in page 121, line 26, leave out 'words' and insert 'expressions'.
      No. 286, in page 121, line 30, leave out subsection (6). —[Mr. Butcher.]

    Clause 268

      PRIVILEGE FOR COMMUNICATIONS WITH PATENT AGENTS
      Amendments made: No. 287, in page 122, leave out lines 23 to 25 and insert—
      '(1) This section applies to communications as to any matter relating to the protection of any invention, design, technical information, trade mark or service mark, or as to any matter involving passing off.
      (2) Any such communication—'.
      No. 110, in page 122, leave out line 43.

    Clause 272

      PRIVILEGE FOR COMMUNICATIONS WITH REGISTERED TRADE MARK AGENTS
      Amendment made: No. 288, in page 125, leave out lines 1 and 2 and insert—
      '(1) This section applies to communications as to any matter relating to the protection of any design, trade mark or service mark, or as to any matter involving passing off.
      (2) Any such communication—'.—[Mr. Butcher.]
      Mr. Iain Mills rose—
      Mr. Depury Speaker (Sir Paul Dean): We are dealing with amendments that have been discussed at the moment. I think the hon. Gentleman is concerned with amendment No. 278, which we shall come to later.
      Amendments made: No. 111, in page 125, Line 14, after 'partnership', insert
      'entitled to describe itself as a firm of registered trade mark agents, or
      (c) a'.
      No. 112, in page 125, leave out line 16.—[Mr. Butcher.]

    Clause 284

      DEVICES DESIGNED TO CIRCUMVENT COPY-PROTECTION
      Amendments made: No. 113, in page 130, line 28, leave out 'have been' and insert 'are'.
      No. 114, in page 130, line 31, leave out 'who issues' and insert 'issuing'.
      No. 289, in page 130, line 32, leave out from 'who' to end of line 33 and insert
      "knowing or having reason to believe that it will be used to make infringing copies—'.
      No. 115, in page 130, line 35, leave out 'apparatus or device' and insert 'device or means'.
      No. 290, in page 130, line 35, at end insert 'specifically'.
      No. 291, in page 130, line 38, leave out 'calculated' and insert 'intended'.
      No. 116, in page 130, line 42, leave out 'apparatus or device' and insert 'device or means'.
      No. 195, in page 130, line 45, leave out from 'an' to end of line 46 and insert 'infringing copy'.—[Mr. Butcher.]
      No. 237, in page 131, line 2, after 'prevent' insert 'or restrict'—[Mr. Tim Smith.]
      No. 196, in page 131, line 14, at end insert
      '; and section(Order as to disposal of infringing copy or other article) of this Act applies, with the necessary modifications, in relation to the disposal of anything delivered up or seized by virtue of subsection (3) above'.—[Mr. Butcher.]

    Clause 285
      OFFENCE OF FRAUDULENTLY RECEIVING PROGRAMMES
      Amendment made: No. 117, in page 131, line 17, leave out from 'a' to 'with' and insert 'broadcasting or cable programme service provided from a place in the United Kingdom'.—[Mr. Butcher.]
    Clause 286

      RIGHS AND REMEDIES IN RESPECT OF APPARATUS, &C. FOR FRAUDULENTLY RECEIVING PROGRAMMES
      Amendments made: No. 292, in page 131, line 29, leave out from 'who to 'is' in line 31 and insert'—

      (a) makes charges for the reception of programmes included in a broadcasting or cable programme service provided from a place in the United Kingdom, or

      (b)sends encrypted transmissions of any other description from a place in the United Kingdom,'.

      No. 119, in page 131, line 35, leave out 'without payment' and insert
      'or other transmissions when they are not entitled to do so'.
      No. 120, in page 131, line 37, leave out 'without payment' and insert
      'or other transmissions when they are not entitled to do so'.
      No. 197, in page 131, line 41, leave out from 'an' to end of line 42 and insert 'infringing copy'.
      No. 198, in page 131, line 48 at end insert—

      215
      '(5) Section(Order as to disposal of infringing copy or other article) of this Act applies, with the necessary modifications, in relation to the disposal of anything delivered up or seized by virtue of subsection (3) above.'.
      No. 293, in page 131, line 48, at end insert—
      '(4A) In section 96(1) (innocent infringement of copyright) as it applies to proceedings for infringement of the rights conferred by this section, the reference to the defendant not knowing or having reason to believe that copyright subsisted in the work shall be construed as a reference to his not knowing or having reason to believe that his acts infringed the rights conferred by this section.'.—[Mr, Butcher.]

    Clause 287

      SUPPLEMENTARY PROVISIONS AS TO FRAUDULENT RECEPTION
      Amendments made: No. 121, in page 132, line 1, leave out from beginning to 'no' in line 10 and insert—
      '(1) Her Majesty may by Order in Council—

      (a)provide that section 285 applies in relation to programmes included in services provided from a country or territory outside the United Kingdom, and

      (b)provide that section 286 applies in relation to such programmes and to encrypted transmissions sent from such a country or territory.

      (2)'.
      No. 122, in page 132, line 13, leave out 'services falling within subsection (1)' and insert
      'broadcasting or cable programme services provided from the United Kingdom or, as the case may be, for encrypted transmissions sent from the United Kingdom.
      (2A) A statutory instrument containing an Order in Council under subsection (1) shall be subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament.'.
      No. 123, in page 132, line 15, leave out first 'service'.
      No. 124, in page 132, line 19, leave out subsections (4) and (5) and insert—
      '(5) In sections 285 and 286, and this section "programme", "broadcasting" and "cable programme service", and related expressions, have the same meaning as in Part I (copyright).'.—[Mr. Butcher.]

    Clause 288

      FRAUDULENT APPLICATION OR USE OF TRADE MARK AN OFFENCE
      Amendment proposed: No. 125, in page 133, line 7, at end insert—
      '(1A) It is also an offence, subject to subsection (2) below, for a person to possess in the course of a business goods or material bearing a mark identical to or nearly resembling a registered trade mark with a view to enabling or assisting another person to do any of the things mentioned in subsection (l)(a) to (c), knowing or having reason to believe that the other person is not entitled to use the mark in relation to the goods in question and that the goods are not connected in the course of trade with a person who is so entitled.'.—[Mr. Butcher.]
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this we are considering the following: Government amendments Nos. 126 and 127.
      Amendment No. 278, in page 135, line 7, at end insert—

      FRAUDULENT APPLICATION OR USE OF TRADE MARK AN OFFENCE

        'Information, 58D
        (1) Where articles seized or detained by any enforcement authority are, or appear to that authority to be, goods or material bearing such a mark as is mentioned in subsection (1) of section 58A of this Act, the authority may notify the proprietor of the registered trade mark or his authorised agent of the seizure or detention, as the case may be, and may disclose to him—

        (a) the time, and the address of the place, of seizure or detention of the goods or materials;

        (b) the nature and quantity of the goods seized or detained

        216
        and, if the authority is satisfied that the following information is required for the purpose of preventing the continuance of activities which amount to an offence under section 58A of this Act, or which are being committed abroad and would, if committed within the jurisdiction, amount to such an offence then the authority may also disclose to the said proprietor—

        (c) the name and address of the person from whom the goods or materials have been seized or detained;

        (d) any information identifying the source from which the goods or materials have come or by which they were produced.

        (2) Any disclosure of information or documents made pursuant to this section shall not amount to an offence.'.
        Mr. Mills: I apologise to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker. There was some confusion: I had wished to speak on privilege—patent agents and trade mark agents—but the remarkable and exciting pace of our proceedings rather caught me out. I hope that you and the House will forgive me.
        Clause 288 introduces one of the most important matters in the Bill—criminal penalties against industrial counterfeiting. It is perhaps mean of me to raise a final point at this time of night, but I congratulate officials and the Minister on a job well done. They have done something to help industry and to ensure that the jobs that we have been losing—perhaps 100,000 of them—through industrial counterfeiting will now be protected against such activities.
        My amendment tries to ensure that the communications between the statutory bodies—the trading standards officers, the customs and the police—are as good as they can be, so that information about industrial counterfeiting is exchanged when it is suspected or detected. I raised this in Committee, but I am told by trading standards officers that the solution described by the Minister then was not entirely simple. My amendment would allow freer disclosure of information between the statutory authorities, as well as between trading standards officers, the Customs and industry.
        My hon. Friend knows the point that I am making. So as not to detain the House for too long, I shall ask him only two questions. First, is he truly satisfied that we have communication both ways between the statutory authorities? I am assured by the trading standards officers that it is not a simple matter of saying that the powers already exist. Secondly, will he go further and accept my amendment or, if not, make some helpful remarks on the information that will be passed between those authorities and industry?
        Mr. Butcher: Amendment No. 278 is very similar to an amendment moved by my hon. Friend the Member for Meriden (Mr. Mills) in Committee. At that time, I said that there was little harm in the authorities disclosing the types of information identified in what are now paragraphs (a) and (b) of subsection (1) of the new clause to be inserted in the Trade Marks Act. However, I said that no specific provision was needed because the authorities were already free to disclose the information. Nothing has happened since to cause me to change my opinion on this point, and I consider that it would be positively misleading to insert a provision along those lines, with the implication that without it disclosure would be prohibited.
        That leads me to paragraphs (c) and (d). They also featured in the previous amendment, and I resisted their inclusion on two grounds. The first was that information of this sort necessarily includes an element of judgment on

        217
        the facts that would prejudge the very matters that must be decided by a court, whether civil or criminal. It would be wrong for the authorities to release to one side only information that may be of use in possible litigation.
        Our other reason for rejecting the amendment was that it would be wrong to regard trade mark proprietors or their representatives as being on a par with the official enforcement agencies. If anything, the way in which the amendment is now structured brings that point into stark relief.
        I hope that for the reasons that I have given, especially that it would be misleading to insert such a provision, my hon. Friend will sympathetically consider withdrawing his amendment.
        Mr. Deputy Speaker: The hon. Gentleman need not do that. His amendment is being discussed with a group.
        Amendment agreed to.
        Amendments made: No. 126, in page 133, line 8, after '(I)' insert 'or (1A)'.
        No. 127, in page 133, line 17, leave out 'that subsection' and insert 'subsection (1)'.
        No. 199, in page 133, line 41, leave out from 'may' to 'goods' in line 43 and insert
        ', if satisfied that at the time of his arrest or charge he had in his possession, custody or control—
        (a)'.
        No. 200, in page 134, leave out lines 4 to 9 and insert 'order that the goods or material be delivered up to such person as the court may direct.
        (2) For this purpose a person shall be treated as charged with an offence—

        (a) in England, Wales and Northern Ireland, when he is orally charged or is served with a summons or indictment;

        (b)in Scotland, when he is cautioned, charged or served with a complaint or indictment.

        (3) An order may be made by the court of its own motion or on the application of the prosecutor (or, in Scotland, the Lord Advocate or procurator-fiscal), but shall not be made if it appears to the court unlikely that any order will be made under section 58BA (order as to disposal of offending goods or material).'.
        No. 201, in page 134, line 14, leave out subsection (4) and insert
        '; and in Scotland, where an order has been made under this section, the person from whose possession, custody or control the goods or material have been removed may, without prejudice to any other form of appeal under any rule of law, appeal against that order in the same manner as against sentence.'.
        No. 202, in page 134, leave out lines 17 to 23 and insert—
        '(5) A person to whom goods or material are delivered up in pursuance of an order under this section shall retain it pending the making of an order under section 58BA.
        (6) Nothing in this section affects the powers of the court under section 43 of the Powers of Criminal Courts Act 1973, section 223 or 436 of the Criminal Procedure (Scotland) Act 1975 or Article 7 of the Criminal Justice (Northern Ireland) Order 1980 (general provisions as to forfeiture in criminal proceedings).'.
        No. 203, in page 134, line 23, at end insert—
        'Order as to disposal of offending goods or material
        58BA.—(1) Where goods or material have been delivered up in pursuance of an order under section 58B, an application may be made to the court for an order that they be destroyed or forfeited to such person as the court may think fit.
        (2) Provision shall be made by rules of court as to the service of notice on persons having an interest in the goods or material, and any such person is entitled—

        (a) to appear in proceedings for an order under this section, whether or not he was served with notice, and

        218

        (b) to appeal against any order made, whether or not he appeared;

        and an order shall not take effect until the end of the period within which notice of an appeal may be given or, if before the end of that period notice of appeal is duly given, until the final determination or abandonment of the proceedings on the appeal.
        (3) Where there is more than one person interested in goods or material, the court shall make such order as it thinks just.
        (4) References in this section to a person having an interest in goods or material include any person in whose favour an order could be made under this section or under section(Order as to disposal of infringing copy or other article),(Order as to disposal of illicit recordings) or(Order as to disposal of infringing article, &c.) of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988 (which make similar provision in relation to infringement of copyright, rights in performances and design right).
        (5) Proceedings for an order under this section may be brought—

        (a) in a county court in England, Wales and Northern Ireland, provided the value of the goods or material in question does not exceed the county court limit for actions in tort, and

        (b)in a sheriff court in Scotland;

        but this shall not be construed as affecting the jurisdiction of the High Court or, in Scotland, the Court of Session.'.—[Mr. Butcher.]

      Clause 292

        EXTENT
        Amendments made: No. 128, in page 136, line 16, leave out 'broadcasts' and insert 'transmissions'.
        No. 339, in page 136, line 19, leave out 'broadcasts' and insert 'transmissions'.
        No. 129, in page 136, line 26, leave out from first 'which' to 'amends' in line 27.—[Mr. Butcher.]

  Schedule 1

    COPYRIGHT: TRANSITIONAL PROVISIONS AND SAVINGS
    Amendments made: No. 130, in page 138, line 49, at end insert—
    '(2) However—

    (a) copyright subsists in the sound recording only if copyright subsisted in the film immediately before commencement, and it continues to subsist until copyright in the film expires;

    (b) the author and first owner of copyright in the: film shall be treated as having been author and first owner of the copyright in the sound recording; and

    (c) anything done before commencement under or in relation to the copyright in the film continues to have effect in relation to the sound recording as in relation to the film.'.

    No. 131, in page 139, line 8, at end insert
    'in accordance with the new copyright provisions for the purposes of the rights conferred by Chapter IV of Part I (moral rights), and for all other purposes shall be determined'.
    No. 260, in page 140, line 25, after 'Crown', insert 'or Parliamentary'.
    No. 261, in page 140, line 26, leave out 'paragraph 40' and insert 'paragraphs 40, 40A and 41'.
    No. 132, in page 140, line 35, leave out from 'VII' to 'and' and insert
    '(provisions with respect to copyright licensing).'.
    No. 133, in page 140, line 44, leave out from beginning to first 'of and insert
    'So much of section 18(2) as extends the restricted act of issuing copies to the public to include the rental to the public'
    No. 134, in page 140, line 47, leave out 'hiring' and! insert 'renting'.
    No. 206, in page 141, line 19, leave out from 'Section' to second 'in' and insert
    '(Transfer of copies of works in electronic form) (transfer of copies, adaptations, &c. of work'.
    No. 135, in page 142, line 38, leave out from '239' to 'apply' and insert
    'and 240 (appeals and rules)'.
    No. 136, in page 146, line 41, leave out sub-paragraph (6).
    No. 244, in page 147, line 25, at end insert—
    'British ships, aircraft and hovercraft
    38A. Section(British ships, aircraft and hovercraft: Part I)(British ships, aircraft and hovercraft) does not apply in relation to anything done before commencement.'.
    No. 262, in page 147, line 27, leave out sub-paragraph (1) and insert—
    '(1) Section 160 of this Act (general provisions as to Crown copyright) applies to an existing work if—

    (a) section 39 of the 1956 Act applied to the work immediately before commencement, and

    (b) the work is not one to which section(Copyright in Acts and Measures), 161 or(Copyright in Parliamentary Bills) applies (copyright in Acts, Measures and Bills and Parliamentary copyright: see paragraphs 40A and 41 below).'.

    No. 263, in page 148, line 17 at end insert—
    '40A.—(1) Section(Copyright in Acts and Measures) (copyright in Acts and Measures) applies to existing Acts of Parliament and Measures of the General Synod of the Church of England.
    (2) References in that section to Measures of the General Synod of the Church of England include Church Assembly Measures.'.
    No. 264, in page 148, line 19, leave out paragraph 41 and insert—
    '41.—(1) Section 161 of this Act (general provisions as to Parliamentary copyright) applies to existing unpublished literary, dramatic, musical or artistic work, but does not otherwise apply to existing works.
    (2) Section(Copyright in Parliamentary Bills) (copyright in Parliamentary Bills) does not apply—

    (a) to a public Bill which was introduced into Parliament and published before commencement,

    (b) to a private Bill of which a copy was deposited in either House before commencement or

    (c) to a personal Bill which was given a First Reading in the House of Lords before commencement.'.—[Mr. Garel-Jones.]

  Schedule 2

    RIGHTS IN PERFORMANCES: PERMITTED ACTS
    Amendments made: No. 137, in page 150, line 1, after', hire', insert 'or'.
    No. 138, in page 150, line 2, leave out 'or distributed'.
    No. 139, in page 150, line 28, after ', hire' insert 'or'
    No. 140, in page 150, line 29, leave out 'or distributed'.
    No. 141, in page 151, line 15, at end insert—
    '(2A) Nothing in this paragraph shall be construed as excluding any defence of statutory authority otherwise available under or by virtue of any enactment.'.
    No. 207, in page 151, leave out lines 17 to 28 and insert—
    'Transfer of copies of works in electronic form
    12.—(1) This paragraph applies where a recording of a performance in electronic form has been purchased on terms which, expressly or impliedly or by virtue of any rule of law, allow the purchaser to make further recordings in connection with his use of the recording.
    (2) If there are no express terms—

    (a) prohibiting the transfer of the recording by the purchaser, imposing obligations which continue after a transfer, prohibiting the assignment of any consent or terminating any consent on a transfer, or

    220

    (b) providing for the terms on which a transferee may do the things which the purchaser was permitted to do,

    anything which the purchaser was allowed to do may also be done by a transferee without infringement of the rights conferred by this Part, but any recording made by the purchaser which is not also transferred shall be treated as an illicit recording for all purposes after the transfer.
    (3) The same applies where the original purchased recording is no longer usable and what is transferred is a further copy used in its place.
    (4) The above provisions also apply on a subsequent transfer, with the substitution for references in sub-paragraph (2) to the purchaser of references to the subsequent transferor.
    (5) This paragraph does not apply in relation to a recording purchased before the commencement of Part II.
    (6) Expressions used in this paragraph have the same meaning as in section(Transfer of copies of works in electronic form).'.
    No. 252, in page 152, line 1, at end insert—
    'Recordings of folksongs
    6A.—(1) A recording of a performance of a song may be made for the purpose of including it in an archive maintained by a designated body without infringing any of the rights conferred by Part II, provided the conditions in sub-paragraph (2) below are met.
    (2) The conditions are that—

    (a) the words are unpublished and of unknown authorship at the time the recording is made,

    (b) the making of the recording does not infringe any copyright, and

    (c) its making is not prohibited by any performer.

    (3) Copies of a recording made in reliance on sub-paragraph (1) and included in an archive maintained by a designated body may, if the prescribed conditions are met, be made and supplied by the archivist without infringing any of the rights conferred by Part II.
    (4) In this paragraph—
    "designated body" means a body designated for the purposes of section(Recordings of folksongs), and "the prescribed conditions" means the conditions prescribed for the purposes of subsection (3) of that section;
    and other expressions used in this paragraph have the same meaning as in that section.'.—[Mr. Garel-Jones.]

  Schedule 3

    REGISTERED DESIGNS: MINOR AND CONSEQUENTIAL AMENDMENTS OF 1949 ACT
    Amendments made: No. 142, in page 154, line 34, leave out from 'fit' to end of line 40 and insert—
    '(3A) The registrar may, in such cases as may be prescribed, direct that for the purpose of deciding whether a design is new an applicant shall be treated as made on a date earlier or later than that on which it was in fact made.'.
    No. 143, in page 156, line 41, leave out '(3)' and insert '(3A)'.
    No. 208, in page 158, line 41, leave out paragraph 17 and insert—
    '17.—(1) Section 28 of the Registered Designs Act 1949 (the Appeal Tribunal) is amended as follows.
    (2) For subsection (2) (members of Tribunal) substitute—
    "(2) The Appeal Tribunal shall consist of—

    (a) one or more judges of the High Court nominated by the Lord Chancellor, and

    (b) one judge of the Court of Session nominated by the Lord President of that Court.".

    (3) In subsection (5) (costs), after "costs" (twice) insert "or expenses", and for the words from "and any such order" to the end substitute—
    "and any such order may be enforced—

    (a) in England and Wales or Northern Ireland, in the same way as an order of the High Court;

    (b) in Scotland, in the same way as a decree for expenses granted by the Court of Session.".

    (4) For subsection (10) (seniority of judges) substitute—

    221
    "(10) In this section 'the High Court' means the High Court in England and Wales; and for the purposes of this section the seniority of judges shall be reckoned by reference to the dates on which they were appointed judges of that court or the Court of Session.'.
    (5) The amendments to section 28 made by section 10(5)of the Administration of Justice Act 1970 (power to make rules as to right of audience) shall be deemed always to have extended to Northern Ireland.'.
    No. 245, in page 163, line 3, at end insert—
    '(5) In paragraph (4) for "a department of the Government of Northern Ireland" substitute "a Northern Ireland department", and at the end add "and in relation to a Northern Ireland department references to the Treasury shall be construed as references to the Department of Finance and Personnel".'.—[Mr. Garel-Jones]

  Schedule 4

    THE REGISTERED DESIGNS ACT 1949 AS AMENDED ARRANGEMENT OF SECTIONS
    Amendments made: No. 144, in page 164, line 14, at end insert—
    '8A. Restoration of lapsed right in design.
    8B. Effect of order for restoration of right.'.
    No. 145, in page 165, line 42, leave out from 'not' to 'and' in line 43 and insert
    'normally taken into account to a material extent by persons acquiring or using articles of that description'.
    No. 146, in page 166, line 43, leave out from 'fit' to end of line 51 and insert—
    '(3A) The registrar may, in such cases as may be prescribed, direct that for the purpose of deciding whether a design is new an application shall be treated as made on a date earlier or later than that on which it was in fact made.'.
    No. 147, in page 170, line 38, at end insert—
    '(6) The right in a registered design is not infringed by the reproduction of a feature of the design which, by virtue of section l(l)(b), is left out of account in determining whether the design is registrable.'.
    No. 148, in page 170, line 41, leave out from 'design' to 'if in line 1 on page 171 and insert—
    '(2) The period for which the right subsists may be extended for a second, third, fourth and fifth period of five years, by applying to the registrar for an extension and paying the prescribed renewal fee.
    (3) If the first, second, third or fourth period expires without such application and payment being made, the right shall cease to have effect; and the registrar shall, in accordance with rules made by the Secretary of State, notify the proprietor of that fact.
    (3A)'.
    No. 149, in page 171, line 27, at end insert—
    'Restoration of lapsed right in design
    8A.—(1) Where the right in a registered design has expired by reason of a failure to extend, in accordance with section 8(2) or (3A), the period for which the right subsists, an application for the restoration of the right in the design may be made to the registrar within the prescribed period.
    (2) The application may be made by the person who was the registered proprietor of the design or by any other person who would have been entitled to the right in the design if it had not expired; and where the design was held by two or more persons jointly, the application may, with the leave of the registrar, be made by one or more of them without joining the others.
    (3) Notice of the application shall be published by the registrar in the prescribed manner.
    (4) If the registrar is satisfied that the proprietor took reasonable care to see that the period for which the right subsisted was extended in accordance with section 8(2) or (3A), he shall, on payment of any unpaid renewal fee and any prescribed additional fee, order the restoration of the right in the design.
    (5) The order may be made subject to such conditions as the registrar thinks fit, and if the proprietor of the design does not comply with any condition the registrar may revoke the order and give such consequential directions as he thinks fit.
    (6) Rules altering the period prescribed for the purposes of subsection (1) may contain such transitional provisions and savings as appear to the Secretary of State to be necessary or expedient.
    Effect of order for restoration of right
    8B.—(1) The effect of an order under section 8A for the restoration of the right in a registered design is as follows.
    (2) Anything done under or in relation to the right during the period between expiry and restoration shall be treated as valid.
    (3) Anything done during that period which would have constituted an infringement if the right had not expired shall be treated as an infringement—

    (a)if done at a time when it was possible for an application for extension to be made under section 8(3A); or

    (b)if it was a continuation or repetition of an earlier infringing act.

    (4) If after it was no longer possible for such an application for extension to be made, and before publication of notice of the application for restoration, a person—

    (a)began in good faith to do an act which would have constituted an infringement of the right in the design if it had not expired, or

    (b)made in good faith effective and serious preparations to do such an act,

    he has the right to continue to do the act or, as the case may be, to do the act, notwithstanding the restoration of the right in the design; but this does not extend to granting a licence to another person to do this act.
    (5) If the act was done, or the preparations were made, in the course of a business, the person entitled to the right conferred by subsection (4) may—

    (a)authorise the doing of that act by any partners of his for the time being in that business, and

    (b)assign that right, or transmit it on death (or in the case of a body corporate on its dissolution), to any person who acquires that part of the business in the course of which the act was done or the preparations were made.

    (6) Where an article is disposed of to another in exercise of the rights conferred by subsection (4) or subsection (5), that other and any person claiming through him may deal with the article in the same way as if it had been disposed of by the registered proprietor of the design.
    (7) The above provisions apply to the use of a registered design for the services of the Crown as they apply in relation of the infringement right in the design.'.
    No. 150, in page 174, line 49, leave out '(3)' and insert (3A)'
    No. 209, in page 181, line 48, leave out from 'of to end of line 50 and insert—

    (a)one or more judges of the High Court nominated by the Lord Chancellor, and

    (b)one judge of the Court of Session nominated by the Lord President of that Court.'.

    No. 210, in page 182, line 18, after 'costs', insert 'or expenses'.
    No. 211, in page 182, line 20 leave out from 'be' to end of line 21 and insert 'enforced—

    (a)in England and Wales or Northern Ireland, in the same way as an order of the High Court;

    (b)in Scotland, in the same way as a decree for expenses granted by the Court of Session.'.

    No. 212, page 182, line 43, at end insert 'or the Court Session'.
    No. 246, in page 187, line 43, leave out from 'a' to end of line 44 and insert
    'a Northern Ireland department, and in relation to a Northern Ireland department references to the Treasury shall be construed as references to the Department of Finance and Personnel'.
    No. 247, in page 191, line 50, at end insert—
    'COMPENSATION FOR LOSS OF PROFIT
    2A.—(1) Where Crown use is made of a registered design, the government department concerned shall pay—

    (a)to the registered proprietor, or

    (b)if there is an exclusive licence in force in respect of the design, to the exclusive licensee

    compensation for any loss resulting from his not being awarded a contract to supply the articles to which the design is applied.
    (2) Compensation is payable only to the extent that such a contract could have been fulfilled from his existing manufacturing capacity; but is payable notwithstanding the existence of circumstances rendering him ineligible for the award of such a contract.
    (3) In determing the loss, regard shall be had to the profit which would have been made on such a contract and to the extent to which any manufacturing capacity was under-used.
    (4) No compensation is payable in respect of any failure to secure contracts for the supply of articles to which the design is applied otherwise than for the services of the Crown.
    (5) The amount payable under this paragraph shall, if not agreed between the registered proprietor or licensee and the government department concerned with the approval of the Treasury, be determined by the court on a reference under paragraph 3; and it is in addition to any amount payable under paragraph 1 or 2 of this schedule.
    (6) In this paragraph—
    "Crown use", in relation to a design, means the doing of anything by virtue of paragraph 1 which would other-wise be an infringement of the right in the design; and
    "the government department concerned", in relation to such use, means the government department who or on whose authority the act was done."
    No. 248, in page 191, line 52 [Schedule 4], leave out from 'to to 'may' in line 2 on page 192 and insert—

    '(a) the exercise by a Government department, or a person authorised by a Government department, of the powers conferred by paragraph I of this Schedule,

    (b) terms for the use of a design for the services of the Crown under that paragraph.

    (c) the right of any person to receive any part of a payment made under paragraph 1(3), or

    (d) the right of any person to receive a payment under paragraph 2A,'—[Mr. Garel-Jones.]

  Schedule 5

    PATENTS: MINOR AMENDMENTS
    Amendments made: No. 294, in page 194, line 15 at end insert—
    '4A. In section 130(1) of the Patents Act 1977 (interpretation), in the definition of "search fee", for "section 17 above" substitute "section 17(1) above".'.
    No. 151, in page 194, line 26 at end insert—
    '(2A) After subsection (2) insert—
    "(2A) Notice of the application shall be published by the comptroller in the prescribed manner.".'.
    No. 152, in page 194, line 30, leave out from beginning to 'does' and insert This amendment'.
    No. 153, in page 194, line 34, at end insert—
    '(4) Omit subsections (5) to (9) (effect of order for restoration).
    5A. After that section insert—
    "Effect of order for restoration of patent
    28A.—(1) The effect of an order for the restoration of a patent is as follows.
    (2) Anything done under or in relation to the patent during the period between expiry and restoration shall be treated as valid.
    (3) Anything done during that period which would have constituted an infringement if the patent had not expired shall be treated as an infringement—

    (a) if done at a time when it was possible for the patent to be renewed under section 25(4); or

    224

    (b) if it was a continuation or repetition of an earlier infringing act.

    (4) If after it was no longer possible for the patent to be so renewed, and before publication of notice of the application for restoration, a person—

    (a) began in good faith to do an act which would have constituted an infringement of the patent if it had not expired, or

    (b) made in good faith effective and serious preparations to do such an act,

    he has the right to continue to do the act or, as the case may be, to do the act, notwithstanding the restoration of the patent; but this right does not extend to granting a licence to another person to do the act.
    (5) If the act was done, or the preparations were made, in the course of a business, the person entitled to the right conferred by subsection (4) may—

    (a) authorise the doing of that act by any partners of his for the time being in that business, and

    (b) assign that right, or transmit it on death (or in the case of a body corporate on its dissolution), to any person who acquires that part of the business in the course of which the act was done or the preparations were made.

    (6) Where a product is disposed of to another in exercise of the rights conferred by subsection (4) or (5), that other and any person claiming through him may deal with the product in the same way as if it had been disposed of by the registered proprietor of the patent.
    (7) The above provisions apply in relation to the use of a patent for the services of the Crown as they apply in relation to infringement of the patent.".'.
    No. 295, in page 194, line 34, at end insert—
    '5B. In consequence of the above amendments—

    (a) in section 60(6)(b) of the Patents Act 1977, for "section 28(6)" substitute "section 28A(4) or (5)"; and

    (b) in sections 77(5), 78(6) and 80(4) of that Act, for the words from "section 28(6)" to the end substitute "section 28A(4) and (5) above, and subsections (6) and (7) of that section shall apply accordingly.".'.

    No. 296, in page 195, line 3, at end insert—
    '6A. In section 74(6) (meaning of "entitlement proceedings"), for "section 37(l)(a) above" substitute "section 37(1) above".'.
    No. 154, in page 196, line 37, at end insert—
    'Right to continue use begun before priority date
    10A. For section 64 of the Patents Act 1977 (right to continue use begun before priority date) substitute—
    "Right to continue use begun before priority date
    64.—(1) Where a patent is granted for an invention, a person who in the United Kingdom before the priority date of the invention—

    (a)does in good faith an act which would constitute an infringement of the patent if it were in force, or

    (b)makes in good faith effective and serious preparations to do such an act,

    has the right to continue to do the act or, as the case may be, to do the act, notwithstanding the grant of the patent; but this right does not extend to granting a licence to another person to do the act.
    (2) If the act was done, or the preparations were made, in the course of a business, the person entitled to the right conferred by subsection (1) may—

    (a) authorise the doing of that act by any partners of his for the time being in that business, and

    (b) assign that right, or transmit it on death (or in the case of a body corporate on its dissolution), to any person who acquires that part of the business in the course of which the act was done or the preparations were made.

    (3) Where a product is disposed of to another in exercise of the rights conferred by subsection (1) or (2), that other and any person claiming through him may deal with the product in the same way as if it had been disposed of by the registered proprietor of the patent.".'.
    No. 249, in page 196, line 37, at end insert—

    CROWN USE: COMPENSATION FOR LOSS OF PROFIT
    10A.—(1) In the Patents Act 1977, after section 57
    insert—
    "compensation for loss of profit
    57A.—(1) Where use is made of an invention for the services of the Crown, the government department concerned shall pay—

    (a) to the proprietor of the patent, or

    (b) if there is an exclusive licence in force in respect of the patent, to the exclusive licensee,

    compensation for any loss resulting from his not being awarded a contract to supply the patented product or, as the case may be, to perform the patented process or supply a thing made by means of the patented process.
    (2) Compensation is payable only to the extent that such a contract could have been fulfilled from his existing manufacturing or other capacity; but is payable notwithstanding the existence of circumstances rendering him ineligible for the award of such a contract.
    (3) In determining the loss, regard shall be had to the profit which would have been made on such a contract and to the extent to which any manufacturing or other capacity was under-used.
    (4) No compensation is payable in respect of any failure to secure contracts to supply the patented product or, as the case may be, to perform the patented process or supply a thing made by means of the patented process, otherwise than for the services of the Crown.
    (5) The amount payable shall, if not agreed between the proprietor or licensee and the government department concerned with the approval of the Treasury, be determined by the court on a reference under section 58, and is in addition to any amount payable under section 55 or 57.
    (6) In this section 'the government department concerned', in relation to any use of an invention for the services of the Crown, means the government department by whom or on whose authority the use was made.
    (7) In the application of this section to Northern Ireland, the reference in subsection (5) above to the Treasury shall, where the government department concerned is a department of the Government of Northern Ireland, be construed as a reference to the Department of Finance and Personnel.".
    (2) In section 58 of the Patents Act 1977 (reference of disputes as to Crown use), for subsection (1) substitute—
    "(1) Any dispute as to—

    (a) the exercise by a government department, or a person authorised by a government department, of the powers conferred by section 55 above,

    (b) terms for the use of an invention for the services of the Crown under that section,

    (c) the right of any person to receive any part of a payment made in pursuance of subsection (4) of that section, or

    (d) the right of any person to receive a payment under section 57A,

    may be referred to the court by either party to the dispute after a patent has been granted for the invention.";
    and in subsection (4) for "under this section" substitute "under subsection (l)(a), (b) or (c) above".
    (3) In section 58(11) of the Patents Act 1977 (exclusion of right to compensation for Crown use if relevant transaction, instrument or event not registered), after "section 57(3) above)" insert ", or to any compensation under section 57A above,".
    (4) The above amendments apply in relation to any use of an invention for the services of the Crown after the commencement of this section, even if the terms for such use were settled before commencement.'.
    No. 297, in page 196, line 37, at end insert—
    'Compulsory licensing: reliance on statements in competition report
    10A. In section 53(2) of the Patents Act 1977 (compulsory licensing: reliance on statements in reports of Monopolies and Mergers Commission)—
    226

    (a)for "application made in relation to a patent under sections 48 to 51 above" substitute "application made under section 48 above in respect of a patent"; and

    (b)after "Part VII of the Fair Trading Act 1973" insert "or section 17 of the Competition Act 1980".'.

    No. 213, in page 199, leave out lines 32 to 34 and insert—
    '(2) If the application, or the designation of the United Kingdom in it, is withdrawn or (except as mentioned in subsection (3)) deemed to be withdrawn under the Treaty, it shall be treated as withdrawn under this Act.'.
    No. 214, in page 199, line 35, leave out
    'cease to be treated as an application'
    and insert 'be treated as withdrawn'.
    No. 215, in page 199, leave out lines 45 to 49.
    No. 216, in page 200, line 12, at end insert
    'having such date of filing as he may direct'.
    No. 217, in page 200, line 21, leave out from 'begins' to end of line 27 and insert
    —

    (a) when the prescribed period expires, provided any necessary translation of the application into English has been filed at the Patent Office and the prescribed fee has been paid by the applicant; or

    (b) on the applicant expressly requesting the comptroller to proceed earlier with the national phase of the application, filing at the Patent Office—

    (i) a copy of the application, if none has yet been sent to the Patent Office in accordance with the Treaty, and

    (ii) any necessary translation of the application into English,

    and paying the prescribed fee.'.
    No. 218, in page 200, line 36, leave out from 'if to 'otherwise' in line 38 and insert
    `—

    (a) when the prescribed period expires, any necessary translation of the amendment into English has been filed at the Patent Office, or

    (b) where the applicant expressly requests the comptroller to proceed earlier with the national phase of the application, there is then filed at the Patent Office—

    (i) a copy of the amendment, if none has yet been sent to the Patent Office in accordance with the Treaty, and

    (ii) any necessary translation of the amendment into English;'.

    No. 219, in page 200, line 51, leave out from 'where' to second 'the' in line 52 and insert
    'in accordance with the Treaty any extra days are allowed'
    No. 220, in page 201, line 4, after 'application', insert—
    ', not having been published under this Act,'.
    No. 221, in page 201, line 11, after 'application', insert—
    ', not having been published under this Act,'.
    No. 222, in page 201, line 27, leave out 'an' and insert 'the'.—[Mr. Garel-Jones.]

  Schedule 7

    CONSEQUENTIAL AMENDMENTS: GENERAL
    No. 156, in page 207, line 4, at end insert
    'Public Libraries (Scotland) Act 1955 (c. 27)
    5A. In section 4 of the Public Libraries (Scotland) Act 1955 (extension of lending power of public libraries), make the existing provision subsection (1) and after it add—
    "(2) The provisions of Part I of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988 (copyright) relating to the rental of copies of sound recordings, films and computer programs apply to any lending by a statutory library authority or copies of such works, whether or not a charge is made for that facility.".'.
    No. 157, in page 207, leave out lines 5 to 8.
    No. 158. in page 207, line 14, at end insert—
    'Public Libraries and Museums Act 1964 (c. 75)
    7A. In section 8 of the Public Libraries and Museums Act 1964 (restrictions on charges for library facilities), after subsection (5) add—
    "(6) The provisions of Part I of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988 (copyright) relating to the rental of copies of sound recordings, films and computer programs apply to any lending by a library authority of copies of such works, whether or not a charge is made for that facility.".'.
    No. 159, in page 210, line 11, leave out from 'or' to 'of in line 12 and insert
    'any patents county court having jurisdiction by virtue of an order under section 275'.
    No. 160, in page 212, line 4, at end insert—
    'Education and Libraries (Northern Ireland) Order 1986 (S.I. 1986 594 (N.I.3))
    32A. In Article 77 of the Education and Libraries (Northern Ireland) Order 1986 (charges for library services), after paragraph (2) add—
    "(3) The provisions of Part I of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988 (copyright) relating to the rental of copies of sound recordings, films and computer programs apply to any lending by a board of copies of such works, whether or not a charge is made for that facility.".'.—[Mr. Garel-Jones.]

  Schedule 8

    REPEALS
    Amendments made: No. 298, in page 216, line 51, column 3, at end insert—
    'Section 28(5) to (9).'.
    No. 299, in page 216, line 52, column 3, at end insert—
    'Section 72(3).'.
    No. 300, in page 217, line 9, column 3, at end insert—
    'In section 130(7), the words "88(6) and (7),".'.
    No. 161, in page 217, line 10, column 3, leave out 'paragraph' and insert 'paragraphs 1 and'.—[Mr. Garel-Jones.]

    Title
    Amendment made: In line 10, leave out 'programmes' and insert 'transmissions'.
    Order for Third Reading read.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, That the Bill be read the Third time.—[Mr. Garel-Jones.]
    3.12 am
    Mr. Blair: This is an historic Bill in the law of copyright. I say that because Copyright Bills are so rare that when they occur they are invariably historic. None the less, this Bill has done a tremendous amount to bring the law of copyright up to date.
    I thank the officials of the Department of Trade and Industry, who were of tremendous assistance to Members on both sides of the Committee. I also thank many of those who lobbied us on the Bill. We have always had an ambivalent attitude to those lobbies. On the one hand, they can make life extremely hot for us, but on the other, if they had not been there to lobby us, we would not have appreciated many of the issues to be debated in the Bill.
    228
    I thank also my hon. Friends who have raised many points with considerable assiduity and concern. The Government have met many of the problems that we raised. I commend them for doing so. They have met the difficulties raised concerning photographers. They have partly met those on publishing and commercial photocopying, rentals, computers and a host of other minor matters. The Government have rejected other Opposition pleas, particularly those relating to journalists, the blank tape levy and moral rights, but ultimately the Bill will be judged by its effect on industry and its ability to strike a correct balance between industry and the consumer.
    I do not believe that the Opposition are necessarily right about every aspect of the Bill. We do not have a monopoly of wisdom. However, we have done our best to ensure that an adequate balance has been struck. Ultimately it will be those who work and earn their living in the copyright industries who will have the final word.
    3.14 am
    Mr. Butcher: First, I thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and also Madam Deputy Speaker, Mr. Speaker and the hon. Member for Cambridge (Mr. Rhodes James) who presided over the Committee stage, for the courtesy, kindness and, when needed, the brisk approach that have been applied to our proceedings.
    My officials have been in the trenches on this issue for about four years. Therefore, I thank them on behalf of the whole House. They have made themselves available at all times to all members of the Committee, on both sides. There were even occasions when they briefed Opposition Members before they briefed me. I am sure that the House wishes to acknowledge their great efforts on our behalf.
    In my view, the proceedings on this Bill have shown the House of Commons in its best light. Such a view of the House is not often presented to the public. Its mood has almost always been constructive. Sincerely held views were expressed and the exchanges were candid.
    I thank all my hon. Friends who served on the Committee and who have stayed so late tonight. In particular I thank my two parliamentary private secretaries who served the Committee without a formal brief. As volunteers, their work was very much appreciated.
    I commend the Bill to their Lordships. I hope that they will be particularly kind to it. I believe that it will stand the test of time but that, like Halley's comet, it will come back after another two decades. We hope that it will return to this House in good shape.
    Question put and agreed to.
    Bill accordingly read the Third time, and passed, with amendments.

  PETITION

    Greyhound Racing (Taxation)
    3.17 am
    Mr. Austin Mitchell: I beg to present a petition from Mr. Robert Anthony Fisher of 32 Colne avenue, Watford, in the county of Hertford. It states that various dog tracks have imposed a levy on all winning bets and that bookmakers have imposed an additional levy on top of the off-course betting duty, both without

    229
    Parliament's consent. Mr. Fisher is petitioning Parliament to stop that illegal taxation. I shall ask the Clerk to read the petition.
    The Clerk at the Table read the petition, which was as Follows:
    To the Honourable the Commons of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland assembled in Parliament.
    The Humble Petition of Robert Anthony Fisher:
    Sheweth
    That, whereas by authority of Parliament held in the twenty-fifth year of the reign of Edward the Third, King of England, it was declared and enacted that thenceforth by the good laws and statutes of this Realm your petitioner has inherited the freedom that he should not be compelled to contribute to any tax or other like charge not set by common consent in Parliament and later called the 'Petition of Right' and
    Whereas of late divers persons have, contrary to this freedom, usurped the authority of Parliament and notwithstanding the protests of your humble petitioner, imposed upon him and many others of Her Majesty's subjects, Taxes, which have not been approved by Parliament and in the manners following.
    Notwithstanding that by the gracious consent of Parliament in 1987 on course Betting Duty, for the benefit of the public purse was abolished absolutely, the proprietors of a number of greyhound stadia, having the power to admit bookmakers at their discretion, have persuaded the latter to levy a tax upon all winning bets placed by members of the public and to deliver the proceeds to the said proprietors for their use or benefit. Your humble petitioner has thus been unlawfully taxed at Wembley, Wimbledon and Wathamstow and
    Whereas it has been enacted by Parliament that off-course Betting Duty be set at 8% divers persons and companies, namely Ladbrokes, William Hill, Mecca, Corals, Ansell & Sons and many others have imposed rates of tax in excess of 8% upon your humble petitioner and other good and loyal subjects and have converted the surplus to their own devices and benefit.
    And all these taxes are taken contrary to protest, without the consent of those who are required to pay and without consideration and contrary to the laws, freedoms and customs of this Realm and Reckless of the authority of the honourable Commons in Parliament assembled.
    Wherefore your petitioner prays your honourable House do put down those pernicious practices and do confirm and strengthen the laws of this Realm and the Authority of Parliament so that it be a punishable offence for any person to demand or receive any tax or like charge

    (i) levied upon the public or any part thereof, for which no consideration is given or consent obtained, save as may be lawfully sanctioned by Parliament

    (ii) as aforesaid in respect of any amount or rate of tax in excess of that laid down and approved by Parliament

    And your petitioner, as in duty bound, will ever pray etc.…
    To lie upon the Table.

  Trainees (Dyslexia)
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Garel-Jones.]
  3.20 am
  Mr. James Paice: Obviously, at this late hour, it is difficult to be grateful for everything, but I am extremely grateful for the opportunity to present this short Adjournment debate to bring to the attention of the House a matter which I believe is of great significance for a small number of people, who are, in their own way, very important. I refer to young people on youth training schemes who suffer from severe dyslexia, a malady which has been researched in some detail, but about which a great deal is still to be discovered.
  Before explaining the problem more fully to the House, I should explain that the initial impetus for my inquiries came from problems experienced by a company of which I am a director, and which operates a managing agency for the youth training scheme.
  Although I wish to approach the general aspects of the problem, I shall refer to a specific example and I am grateful to my right hon. Friend the Member for Suffolk, Coastal (Mr. Gummer) and to my hon. Friend the Member for Suffolk, Central (Mr. Lord) for their agreement to my using information pertaining to their constituencies.
  One of the great strengths of the youth training scheme is the amount of effort that has been put in by the Manpower Services Commission, now the Training Commission, in ensuring the provision and the promotion of equal opportunity for all young people in YTS, and particularly the comprehensive range of special help which is provided for people with disabilities so that they should be able to achieve the same advantages from YTS training as their peers.
  The commission's definition of disability includes moderate or severe learning difficulties, however, caused. The information which I wish to draw to the attention of the House and my hon. Friend the Minister shows that the highly commendable objective of the commission and the Government is being thwarted by the intransigence of at least one vocational examining body.
  There are a number of occupations which are purely practical in nature and which a dyslexic worker could fulfil just as well as any other individual. Obviously, in terms of future advancement in the industry, illiteracy due to dyslexia can become a hindrance, but at the craft level, the ability to obtain and to practise the skills is unaffected by dyslexia.
  The problem is that in some cases the vocational qualifications to demonstrate the skills can be achieved only by written examination. For example, I have here a total of four question papers put out in June 1988 by the City and Guilds of London Institute for an agriculture phase 2 exam. There is a total of 10 hours of written examinations.
  I have read carefully every single question in those papers, and it is extremely difficult to conceive of a time when a working person would ever have to read one of those questions, let alone write down the information required, other than for the purposes of passing that examination. As my hon. Friend the Minister is aware, in

  231
  agriculture the City and Guilds phase 2 is recognised as the appropriate qualification at craft level and was the final qualification under the agricultural apprenticeship offered by the Agricultural Training Board.
  What is essential for the trainee and for a future employer is that the young person has demonstrated the level of knowledge and skill required. Obviously, an employer would wish to know if there are problems of illiteracy, but that is a matter separate from the assessment of skills.
  The example I shall give demonstrates that all that could be achieved under this system is a failure of the examination paper with the result that any potential employer would almost certainly jump to the conclusion that the examination had been failed through ignorance rather than because of a fundamental problem of dyslexia, which is totally unrelated to the knowledge and skills involved in the occupation.
  I should like to refer to the example of a young lad named Ian Hurren. He is a constituent of my hon. Friend the Member for Suffolk, Central. Ian has just completed a two-year youth training scheme in agriculture but he has not achieved any national vocational qualification, despite the view of the managing agent and staff of the agricultural college he attended that he is a student of exceptional ability. I have with me a catalogue of documents, including several letters. I have one from his original school, in which the senior teacher says:
  "throughout his time at the school, he suffered from a form of dyslexia which presents him with considerable reading and, therefore, learning problems."
  I also have a letter from the senior educational psychologist of Suffolk county council which states—this is significant—
  "On a short form of the Weschler Adult Intelligence Scale, Ian's sub-test scores show wide variation. This can be readily attributed to his reading deficiency as those sub-tests which are more directly related to this are scored lower whilst the others are scored much higher. Indeed, on the block design sub-test, a measure of ability to analyse and synthesise, he scored maximum points and well within the allocated time limits. If this had been repeated throughout, Ian would be intellectually outstanding."
  That demonstrates that that young lad has an inbuilt difficulty but that it would be totally unjustified and unwarranted to associate that with any lack of overall ability or intellect. That letter demonstrates the opposite. The same letter goes on:
  "I recommend unreservedly that Ian is given some dispensation for formal academic examinations. There is a need for questions or instructions to be read to him for practical tests with the opportunity for repetition on request (perhaps pre-recorded magnetic tape) otherwise, an amanuensei is necessary."
  Armed with information such as that, one would have expected notice to have been taken. Requests from the managing agent, the agricultural college and the Training Commission at headquarters level to the City and Guilds of London all met with a nil response. In a letter to the college it stated:
  "I am afraid that our current policy regarding students with differing disabilities of dyslexia is quite firm in not permitting readers or amanuenses."
  Yet the regulations of the City and Guilds of London state:
  "in general the employment of readers or amanuensis is not permitted except where such activity could be shown to be a normal aspect of the job being examined. It is, however,
  232
  usually possible for a candidate who is suffering from a temporary handicap such as a fractured wrist to be permitted the assistance of an amanuensis provided medical evidence is available."
  In other words, if young Ian Hurren had conveniently broken his wrist the week before the examination, he could have taken it, had an amanuensis and nobody would have been any the wiser. Because he had a different problem, that was not allowed. No help was available other than the offer of extended time for the examination. The Dyslexia Association has told us that that is of no value to somebody who is genuinely suffering from dyslexia.
  The House will not be surprised to note that, as a result of that intransigence, Ian did not take the exam formally. However, he sat it informally, with an amanuensis, under the auspices of the agricultural college. On the four papers to which I have referred, he achieved marks of 77 per cent., 69 per cent,, 73 per cent., and 69 per cent.—a clear illustration of his ability.
  That is but one example. I do not wish the House to believe that I have come to the debate with just one problem. I considered that I should illustrate the problem and bring it to the attention of the House and in particular of my hon. Friend the Minister.
  I am aware that, because of the level of intransigence regarding the provision of amanuenses, it has been the practice of certain examination centres to provide an amanuensis and not to tell the City and Guilds of London. Many would say that that is a dishonest practice, but, in the circumstances, it is an understandable reaction.
  I look forward to hearing what my hon. Friend says in reply. It is important to remind the House of the policy of the National Council for Vocational Qualifications. It is totally endorsed by the Training Commission in its codes of practice. The council states:
  "key criteria for national vocational qualifications, of particular relevance to trainees with special needs, is that they should be based on the assessment of standards, free of definition of mode, place or pace of learning".
  It goes on to state:
  "any valid method of assessment which demonstrates that the competence under test has been achieved to the specified standard should be encouraged, for example, it may be possible to substitute oral questions for written ones."
  Again it states:
  "where a trainee's performance can be assisted with the use of mechanical aids such as typewriters or tape recorders, these should also be permitted".
  As my hon. Friend knows, I have a total commitment to the youth training scheme and to the Government's efforts to provide opportunities for all young trainees, regardless of their backgrounds or personal problems. YTS has come a long way since it began. The advent of the National Council for Vocational Qualifications has added great depth and meaning to many qualifications that are available through YTS. It is now policy that, under the NCVQ, assessment must not become a barrier to achievement. I am sure that that view will be shared by all hon. Members. Sadly, though, as I have explained, there are individuals for whom it is very much a barrier.
  Although there are practical occupations, it is absolutely essential that we have a vocational qualification system that allows skills and knowledge to be accurately assessed without them being hidden by other problems such as dyslexia. I am well aware that dyslexia is sometimes used as a means of hiding a lack of academic ability, but there are several genuine cases in which the

  233
  lack of an effective means of assessment—I have demonstrated one—can jeopardise a young person's career.
  The charge of ignorance is often laid at the door of the dyslexic. I hope that the House will agree that that charge is totally unwarranted. The example that I quoted demonstrates that point. It is essential that we remove that slur from the dyslexic's existing list of problems.
  I have quoted just one example from one industry. I have discussed the matter with the National Council for Vocational Qualifications. It assured me that it is a genuine and important problem across a whole range of practical occupations. It is important, not only to the lad to whom I have referred but to many other people, now and in the future, who embark on training within and outside the YTS, who will look to a form of assessment of their genuine skills. I hope that such opportunities for forms of assessment exist in future and that my hon. Friend will be able to give me some encouragement.
  3.35 am
  The Pariiamentary Under-Secretary of State for Employment (Mr. Patrick Nicholls): Despite the lateness of the hour, I compliment my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridgeshire, South-East (Mr. Paice) on choosing this subject for debate, for the way that he has introduced it and for the detail that he has given us. I am grateful to him for his courtesy in giving me a detailed idea of the sort of material that he would be bringing before the House.
  It might help the House if I outline briefly where the youth training scheme programme stands and then try to pick up the points that my hon. Friend has made in the time that remains available to me. We can all agree that the YTS has been a remarkable achievement. We spend over £1 billion a year on YTS, and 70 per cent. of 16-year-old school leavers and a growing proportion of 17-year-oids who leave school are involved in the scheme. In many parts of the country, and for many industries, YTS has become the normal route into work for those who do not go into some form of further or higher education. The YTS offers a sustained and well-structured vocational training course with on and off the job training and the opportunity to study for relevant vocational qualifications.
  The figures show that the scheme is working. For example, 80 per cent. of young people who have been trained through YTS say that they found it worth while, and over 75 per cent., when we follow them up three months later, say that they are in a job or going into some form of further education.
  An important development in YTS is the provision for YTS trainees to work for nationally recognised vocational qualifications. That is at the heart of tonight's debate. All trainees on two-year YTS have the opportunity to work for nationally recognised qualifications or, at the least, a credit towards one, and 98 per cent. of trainees who have gone on to a second year in YTS went in for a qualification in their first year. It is the aim that trainees with different needs and abilities should be able to proceed at their own pace. That brings me on to young people on YTS with disabilities and special training needs.
  From the start, YTS has always made provision for young people with disabilities. "Disabilities" is widely defined, and includes those who suffer from dyslexia. There are a number of ways in which special help is made available on YTS to enable such young people to take full
  234
  advantage of the opportunities that are offered, and to compete on equal terms with their peers. We are much aware of the need to ensure equality of access to vocational qualifications. We established the National Council for Vocational Qualifications in 1986 to reform the qualification system and make qualifications more relevant to work. The council is addressing this task: by giving its kitemark—the NVQ—only to qualifications that reflect competence to do the job.
  It is a corollary of that that those who are competent should not be prevented from gaining or even taking a qualification because of a disability which is irrelevant to their chosen occupation. Where an examination is intended to measure a practical skill, the NCVQ may well ask the examining body to consider testing techniques other than a written examination to ensure equality of access to the qualification.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Cambridgeshire, South-East will understand that I cannot comment specifically on the particular instances that he has in mind. However, the relevant awarding body has submitted the qualification in agriculture to the NCVQ for accreditation and the council has given the qualification a conditional accreditation at level 1 of the NCVQ framework. Conditional accreditation means that the qualification substantially meets the NCVQ's criteria but that certain improvements need to be made to bring the qualification fully into line with the council's requirements. I understand that the conditions in the case to which my hon. Friend referred relate to whether the qualification is a valid measure of competence in the job.
  I am sure that my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridgeshire, South-East will understand also that I cannot preface my remarks by talking specifically about the case that he has in mind that involves the NCVQ, but there are a number of points, subject to that caveat, to which I can helpfully draw attention.
  My hon. Friend mentioned amanuenses, and quoted from a letter written by the City and Guilds of London Institute, which stated, in effect, that it is not current policy to provide amanuenses. Perhaps my hon. Friend derived some comfort from that. That use of "current" suggests that there might be the possibility of change.
  My hon. Friend spotted in the correspondence, as I did, the reference to it being possible to provide extra time in most instances. Without commenting on the particular case, it may be that because of the disability, as my hon. Friend said, the provision of extra time is wholly inapplicable. One can imagine, without stretching credulity too far, being given an extra half an hour to sit an examination in Spanish, which is not much use if one does not speak Spanish or wish to learn it.
  I had a look at the various examination boards that deal with academic subjects. Until now, it has not been the practice of the Oxford and Cambridge board to allow the use of an amanuensis, but it intends to do so from 1990. The northern examination board already provides for dyslexics to be able to use its facilities. There might be the rather bizarre result that somebody could do their O and A levels on the northern examination board, go to university, use the facilities of an amanuensis there, graduate with a first-class degree in ergonomics or agriculture, go to the finest agricultural college in the land —Seale-Hayne, in my constituency—leave it with a first-class examination qualification, be competent to get a job running a substantial estate, but, because of dyslexia,

  235
  be incapable of being an agricultural craftsman. That may be reductio ad absurdum, but it is a point that one should bear in mind.
  Without commenting on the merits of the case that we are discussing, it might be said that a farm worker should be sufficiently literate because of the requirements of the health and safety legislation. If we were to say that no one should be entitled to work on a farm unless they were literate to that extent, I am not sure what it would do to agriculture, but I certainly have my suspicions. It would be bizarre if a graduate manager were able to work on a farm but not an agricultural worker.
  My hon. Friend made two telling points. He mentioned the ludicrous proposition that if Mr. Hurren had broken his wrist he would have been able to avail himself of the services of an amanuensis and pass his examinations. My hon. Friend said that this young man had a trial run and passed with flying colours. Mr. Hurren is a young man of proven ability in his chosen job. He is of substantial intellectual ability that is incapable of being measured in conventional terms. He has secured the support of the college where he studies, and I understand from my hon. Friend that he has secured a job. He was obviously capable of convincing his employer that he was capable of operating at a high level.
  My hon. Friend is concerned that facilities that would be available to those in middle-class cerebral occupations —where one might have thought that the necessity for literacy would be greater—are being denied to somebody
  236
  who is in a more manual occupation. It is no secret that hon. Members who have made substantial contributions to our deliberations over the years—sometimes in government—have suffered from dyslexia. In a middle-class way, they have been able to compensate for their disability and have made a substantial contribution.
  I prefaced my remarks—I make no apologies for doing so—by saying that it would be inappropriate for me to comment on the circumstances of this specific case. I cannot fail to be impressed not only by the way in which my hon. Friend advanced his case but by the struggles that this young man has had, and the creditable efforts he has made to equip himself for life. I have tried to say something to my hon. Friend other than mere pious platitudes and compliments. As a result of the debate, I shall read Hansard and write to the City and Guilds of London Institute telling it of my concern about the debate and drawing it to its attention. I shall ensure that the Training Commission and NCVQ understand the concern that has been expressed in the debate.
  Certainly, even at this late hour—or it may be an early hour—if the effect of the debate is to ensure that such young people have the ability to qualify for tasks that they are obviously capable of doing, the fact that one or two of us may have slightly blurry eyes will be a small price to pay.
  Once again, I thank my hon. Friend for giving us the opportunity to consider this subject.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Adjourned accordingly at sixteen minutes to Four o 'clock.

EDUCATION AND SCIENCE

  Free School Meals
  Mr. Frank Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will list(a) the number of families and (b) the number of children (i) eligible and (ii) claiming free school meals for each year since 1979.

  Mr. Dunn
  Data on the number of pupils receiving free school meals in England since 1979 are available in the Department's annual school meals census, copies of which are available in the Library.

  The number of children eligible to receive free meals was included in the October 1987 census, but this information for previous years and the number of families eligible has not been collected by the Department.

  Child Care
  Ms. Richardson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what action he is taking to implement the recommendations within his area of responsibility of the European Commission's childcare network report "Caring for Children—Services and Policies for Childcare and Equal Opportunities in the United Kingdom."

  Mr. Dunn
  My right hon. Friend recently received and is considering this detailed report, which covers the areas of responsibility of a number of Government Departments.

  French
  Mr. Butler
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science whether he proposes to take steps to reverse the downward trend in the GCE French A-level percentage of total passes between 1965 and 1985.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  The Government are concerned to increase the number of pupils continuing to study a foreign language until age 16 and beyond. Our proposals for a national curriculum include a modern foreign language as a foundation subject at secondary level to be studied by all pupils between the ages of 11 and 16. We expect the majority to want to offer it for public examination at age 16 and hope that the greater numbers studying a language up to that age will result in an increase in those continuing their studies to A or AS-level.

  School Leavers
  Mr. Tom Clarke
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will publish a table in the Official Report, showing for each year from 1979 to the latest year for which figures are available, the number of school leavers with special education needs who left
  2
  school, broken down by type of institution, and the numbers who went into (a) employment, (b) education, (c) training, (d) care and (e) who cannot be traced.

  Mr. Dunn
  Only limited information is available. The estimated number of pupils aged 16 who left maintained and non-maintained special schools in England in each of the years 1981 to 1987 is as in the table. Comparable figures for earlier years are not available. Information for other types of institution attended aond on the destination of leavers from special schools is not collected centrally.

  (thousands)

  Number1

  1981

  12·5

  1982

  11·9

  1983

  11·2

  1984

  10·8

  1985

  10·7

  1986

  10·5

  1987

  10·0

  1 Leavers from special schools age 16.

  Workers Educational Association
  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what level of grant has been allocated to the Workers Educational Association on an annual basis from 1979 to the present day; what the projected support for the Workers Educational Association will be to 1990–91; and what future role he sees the Workers Educational Association playing in adult education.

  Mr. Jackson
  Grants made by the Department to the Workers' Educational Association (WEA) districts in England in the academic years 1979–80 to date are set out in the table.

  Grants to Workers' Educational Association districts in academic years

  £ million

  1979–80

  1·129

  1980–81

  1·447

  1981–82

  1·970

  1982–83

  2·209

  1983–84

  2·405

  1984–85

  2·516

  1985–86

  2·437

  1986–87

  2·431

  1987–88

  12·497

  1 Allocation.

  Grants are also paid to the WEA national office to assist in the monitoring and promotion of WEA provision generally. Details of the amounts paid in the financial years 1979–80 to date are set out in the table.

  Grants to WEA National Office in financial years

  £ million

  1979–80

  0·038

  1980–81

  0·043

  1981–82

  0·043

  1982–83

  0·045

  1983–84

  0·045

  1984–85

  0·047

  1985–86

  0·056

  1986–87

  0·050

  1987–88

  0·081

  1988–89

  10·052

  1 Allocation.

  3
  Since 1985–86 the Department has in addition made grants to the WEA for the in-service training of staff, as follows:

  Financial year

  £ million

  1985–86

  0·050

  1986–87

  0·052

  1987–88

  0·054

  1988–89

  10·055

  1 Allocation.

  Grant allocations are made on an annual basis and my right hon. Friend is not therefore in a position to state what the support for the WEA will be for the years to 1990–91.

  The WEA has asked the Department to review the role and resourcing of the association. Officials are currently discussing with the WEA how this might best be done.

  Teachers (Negotiating Rights)
  Mr. Fatchett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what representations he has received concerning the declaration on teachers' negotiat-ing rights (document B2-1187/87) entered in the register of the European Parliament under rule 65 of its procedures, consequent on petition to the president of that body on 9 March by representatives of the National Association of Schoolmasters, Union of Women Teachers and others; and whether he will make a statement.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  My right hon. Friend has received a small number of letters from NASUWT members, both directly and through hon. Members, drawing his attention to this declaration.

  Education Reform
  Mr. Madel
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he proposes to establish a special unit in his Department to deal with requests for guidance and assistance from governors of schools in maintained sector who are contemplating applying for grant maintained status for their schools; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Dunn
  A team of officials in my Department will continue to provide information and advice on request to all those interested in our proposals for grant-maintained schools. Copies of a draft document of guidance on our proposals have already gone to the governing bodies of all maintained schools.

  Retinitis Pigmentosa
  Mr. Shersby
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will list in the Official Report in tabular form details of all scientific research being carried out with support from public funds into retinitis pigmentosa, giving for each project (i) its name, (ii) the name of the research worker concerned, (iii) the location, (iv) the amount being spent, (v) the duration and (vi) its expected completion date.

  Mr. Jackson
  [holding answer 4 July 1988]: The Medical Research Council (MRC), which receives a grant-in-aid from this Department, is the main agency through which
  4
  the Government fund medical research in the United Kingdom. I understand that the MRC provided support for the following projects during 1987–88:

  1. Project title:

  DNA sequence markers in single gene disorders (retinitis pigmentosum, chromosome x-linked mental retardation, etc.)

  Investigator:

  Professor H. J. Evans (Unit Director)

  Location:

  MRC Clinical and Population Cytogenetics Unit

  Duration:

  Commenced 1 April 1983 and ongoing

  2. Project title:

  Characterisation of antiretinal autoimmunity in retinal vasculitis

  Investigator:

  Professor D. C. Dumonde

  Location:

  Guy's and St. Thomas's Medical School, London

  Duration:

  1 March 1984 to 28 February 1987

  3. Project title:

  The physicochemical basis of light reception in vertebrates

  Investigator:

  Professor Sir Alan Hodgkin

  Location:

  Physiological Laboratory, Cambridge University

  Duration:

  1 October 1984 to 30 September 1987

  4. Project title:

  Dark-adaptation and light-adaptation of rod photoreceptors

  Investigator:

  Dr. T. D. Lamb

  Location:

  Physiological Laboratory, Cambridge University

  Duration:

  1 October 1984 to 30 September 1987

  5. Project title:

  Phototransduction in vertebrate rods and cones

  Investigator:

  Dr. D. I. Attwell

  Location:

  Department of Physiology, University College London, London

  Duration:

  1 October 1984 to 30 September 1987

  6. Project title:

  Receptoral and post-receptoral processes in colour vision

  Investigator:

  Dr. J. D. Mollon

  Location:

  Department of Experimental Psychology, Cambridge University

  Duration:

  4 February 1984 to 30 June 1988

  7. Project title:

  Molecular structure of the membrane-cytoskeleton network and of rhodopsin and squid photoreceptor microvilli

  Investigator:

  Dr. Helen R. Saibil

  Location:

  Department of Zoology, Oxford University

  Duration:

  1 July 1985 to 30 June 1988

  8. Project title:

  Clinical and functional studies of different genetic forms of retinitis pigmentosa

  Investigator:

  Professor A. C. Bird

  Location:

  Department of Clinical Ophthalmology, Institute of Ophthalmology, London

  Duration:

  1 May 1985 to 30 April 1988

  9. Project title:

  Synthesis and sorting of glycosaminoglycans in the retina; cone cells and interphotoreceptor matrix

  Investigator:

  Dr. Carolyn A. Converse

  Location:

  Department of Pharmacy, University of Strathclyde, Glasgow

  Duration:

  14 June 1986 to 13 June 1987

  10. Project title:

  Temporal visual processing in amblyopia

  Investigator:

  Dr. R. F. Hess

  Location:

  Physiological Laboratory, Cambridge University

  Duration:

  October 1988 to September 1989

  These projects are not exclusively directed to research on retinitis pigmentosa. For example, the first project listed, at the MRC clinical and population cytogenetics unit, includes research on a range of single gene disorders. The council's estimate of total expenditure on research directly related to retinitis pigmentosa in 1987–88 is £134,000.
  5
  Some support for research on retinitis pigmentosa is also provided by this Department through UGC block grants to universities and medical schools.

OVERSEAS DEVELOPMENT

  Ethnic Minorities
  Mr. Janner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs in which grades people from the ethnic minorities employed in the aid wing in grades 1 to 7 are employed.

  Mr. Chris Patten
  Disclosure of this information would breach the code of practice agreed with the Council of Civil Service Unions about the confidentiality of ethnic origin information on staff in post, and would risk identifying individuals.

  Female Workers
  Mr. Tom Clarke
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if the Overseas Development Administration monitors the effect of United Kingdom bilateral aid on the proportion of the female population who are economically active in recipient countries.

  Mr. Chris Patten
  We evaluate the effects of our aid on women, but it would be impracticable to distinguish the effect of this aid from all other factors which determine the proportion of women who are economically active.

  Mr. Tom Clarke
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will publish a table in the Official Report showing, for all countries in Latin America, information available to him for the latest year for which figures are available on the proportions of the female population who were economically active, in ranked order and the percentage change since 1960.

  Mr. Chris Patten
  Following is the information:

  Activity rate (1985) females (per cent.)

  Percentage change in female activity rate 1960–85

  Jamaica

  42·5

  + 39

  Haiti

  36·2

  -30

  Uruguay

  23·3

  +19

  Trinidad and Tobago

  22·6

  + 26

  Brazil

  19·9

  + 77

  Chile

  19·7

  + 39

  Argentina

  19·4

  + 15

  Panama

  19·0

  + 33

  Venezuala

  18·3

  + 58

  Mexico

  17·9

  + 96

  El Salvador

  16·6

  + 51

  Peru

  15·4

  + 14

  Costa Rica

  15·2

  + 56

  Bolivia

  14·8

  + 6

  Colombia

  14·3

  + 21

  Nicaragua

  14·2

  + 27

  Paraguay

  13·8

  - 1

  Ecuador

  11·7

  + 10

  Honduras

  10·3

  + 30

  Guatemala

  8·7

  + 11

  Dominican Republic

  8·2

  + 38

  Note: The activity rate is the ratio of the economically active population (all employed and unemployed persons including those
  6
  seeking work for the first time) aged 10 years and over to the population of all ages.

  Source: World Demographic Estimates and Projections 1950–2025, United Nations 1988

  OECD Countries
  Mr. Tom Clarke
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will publish tables in the Official Report showing, in ranked order, per capita contributions by Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development Countries to (a) the United Nations International Children's Emergency Fund, (b) the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organisation, (c) the World Health Organisation, and (d) the Food and Agriculture Organisation for the latest year for which figures are available.

  Mr. Chris Patten
  Available information is in the tables. Figures for the United Nations Educational Scientific and Cultural Organisation and the Food and Agriculture Organisation combine assessed and voluntary contributions. Figures for the World Health Organisation cover only assessed contributions to the budget; contributions to voluntarily funded programmes are not available for Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development countries. Contributions to the United Nations International Children's Emergency Fund are all voluntary. 1986 figures are the latest available for UNESCO.

  Contributions from OECD Countries to UNICEF, UNESCO, WHO and FAO

  Recipient: UNICEF Year: 1987

  Rank and donor

  $US per capita contribution

  1 Sweden

  9·41

  2 Norway

  9·39

  3 Finland

  4·64

  4 Switzerland

  2·63

  5 Denmark

  2·26

  6 Canada

  1·31

  7 Netherlands

  1·15

  8 Italy

  1·12

  9 New Zealand

  0·39

  10 United Kingdom

  0·34

  11 Australia

  0·26

  12 United States

  0·25

  13 Germany (FRG)

  0·20

  14 Austria

  0·17

  15 Belgium

  0·17

  16 Japan

  0·16

  17 Luxembourg

  0·14

  18 Ireland

  0·13

  19 France

  0·11

  20 Iceland

  0·09

  21 Spain

  0·02

  22 Greece

  0·02

  23 Portugal

  Negligible

  24 Turkey

  Negligible

  Recipient: UNESCO Year: 1986

  Rank and donor

  $US per capita contribution

  1 Switzerland

  0·75

  2 Norway

  0·59

  3 Sweden

  0·40

  4 Denmark

  0·31

  5 Germany (FRG)

  0·31

  6 Luxembourg

  0·28

  7 Iceland

  0·25

  8 Canada

  0·24

  7

  Rank and donor

  $US per capita contribution

  9 Netherlands

  0·24

  10 France

  0·23

  11 Australia

  0·21

  12 Austria

  0·20

  13 Finland

  0·20

  14 Ireland

  0·19

  15 Japan

  0·18

  16 Italy

  0·15

  17 New Zealand

  0·15

  18 Spain

  0·12

  19 Belgium

  0·10

  20 Greece

  0·09

  21 Portugal

  0·07

  22 Turkey

  Negligible

  23 United States

  Negligible

  24 United Kingdom

  Nil

  Recipient: WHO Year: 1987

  Rank and donor

  $US per capita contribution

  1 Switzerland

  0·42

  2 Sweden

  0·36

  3 Denmark

  0·34

  4 Luxembourg

  0·34

  5 Germany (FRG)

  0·33

  6 Norway

  0·31

  7 Iceland

  0·30

  8 Belgium

  0·29

  9 Canada

  0·29

  10 Netherlands

  0·29

  11 France

  0·28

  12 Australia

  0·25

  13 Finland

  0·24

  14 Austria

  0·23

  15 Japan

  0·22

  16 United Kingdom

  0·21

  17 New Zealand

  0·17

  18 Italy

  0·16

  19 Spain

  0·13

  20 Ireland

  0·12

  21 Greece

  0·11

  22 United States

  0·10

  23 Portugal

  0·04

  24 Turkey

  Nil

  Net official development assistance as a percentage of gross national product

  Percentage change in ratio between 1979 and 1987

  1979

  1987

  1. Italy

  0·08

  0·32

  300

  2. Finland

  0·21

  0·50

  138

  3. Switzerland

  0·21

  0·30

  43

  4. France

  0·60

  0·75

  25

  5. Denmark

  0·71

  0·88

  24

  6. Norway

  0·95

  1·10

  16

  7. Japan

  0·27

  0·31

  15

  8. United States

  0·19

  0·20

  5

  9. Netherlands

  0·94

  0·98

  4

  10. Canada

  0·48

  0·46

  -4

  11. Sweden

  0·92

  0·85

  -8

  12. Austria

  0·19

  0·17

  -11

  13. Germany

  0·45

  0·39

  -13

  14. Belgium

  0·58

  0·49

  -16

  15. Australia

  0·53

  0·33

  -38

  16. New Zealand

  0·34

  0·21

  -38

  17. United Kingdom

  0·51

  0·28

  -45

  Source: DAC chairman's report 1985 and OECD press notice published on 22 June 1988.

  Ireland became a member of the DAC in 1985.

  Mr. Tom Clarke
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will publish a table in the Official Report, showing for each member of
  8

  Recipient: FAO Year: 1987

  Rank and donor

  $ US per capita contribution

  1 Denmark

  2·72

  2 Netherlands

  1·87

  3 Belgium

  1·60

  4 Norway

  1·53

  5 Sweden

  1·51

  6 Switzerland

  1·13

  7 Finland

  0·68

  8 France

  0·38

  9 Iceland

  0·38

  10 Luxembourg

  0·38

  11 Germany (FRG)

  0·36

  12 Canada

  0·30

  13 Australia

  0·28

  14 Austria

  0·28

  15 Japan

  0·26

  16 Italy

  0·25

  17 United Kingdom

  0·21

  18 New Zealand

  0·19

  19 Ireland

  0·16

  20 Spain

  0·14

  21 United States

  0·14

  22 Greece

  0·10

  23 Turkey

  0·09

  24 Portugal

  0·04

  Mr. Tom Clarke
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will publish a table in the Official Report, showing for each member of the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development in ranked order, the percentage change in proportion of gross national product given as overseas aid between 1979 and the latest date for which figures are available.

  Mr. Chris Patten
  Comparative figures are available only for net official development assistance as defined by the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, and not for the amounts actually spent on overseas aid as a proportion of gross national product.

  Exact figures are only available for those countries which are members of the OECD's Development Assistance Committee and have been so throughout the period in question. The information is as follows:

  the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development Assitance Committee, for 1979 and 1987 (a) the per captia gross national product,(b)

  9
  proportion of gross national product constituted by bilateral aid, (c) per capita bilateral aid, (d) the percentage changes in gross national product on the previous year and (e) the percentage real change in bilateral aid on the previous year.

  DAC Country

  (a) GNP per capita in $

  (b) bilateral aid as percent of GNP

  (c) bilateral aid per capita in $

  (d) percentage change in GNP on previous year

  (e) percentage real change in bilateral aid on previous year

  Australia

  8,206

  0·39

  32

  11

  5

  Austria

  9,116

  0·09

  8

  18

  -51

  Belgium

  11,433

  0·39

  45

  15

  -28

  Canada

  9,375

  0·27

  25

  10

  -15

  Denmark

  11,706

  0·43

  51

  16

  6

  Finland

  8,583

  0·10

  9

  23

  63

  France

  10,707

  0·50

  54

  21

  5

  Germany

  12,406

  0·29

  36

  18

  24

  Ireland 1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Italy

  5,710

  0·01

  0

  24

  -15

  Japan

  8,637

  0·20

  17

  4

  31

  Netherlands

  10,735

  0·68

  73

  16

  16

  New Zealand

  6,434

  0·26

  17

  23

  1

  Norway

  11,294

  0·54

  61

  16

  18

  Sweden

  12,238

  0·64

  78

  16

  21

  Switzerland

  15,595

  0·12

  18

  13

  4

  United Kingdom

  7,371

  0·29

  22

  31

  12

  United States

  10,525

  0·17

  18

  11

  8

  Source: this information has been derived from various editions of the report of the Chairman of the OECD's Development Assistance Committee (DAC).

  1 Exactly comparable information is not available for Ireland which joined the DAC in 1985.

  The following figures for 1987 are provisional at this stage. No figures for population in 1987 are yet available. The information given in columns (a) and (c) is therefore based on population figures for 1986.

  (a)

  (b)

  (c)

  (d)

  (e)

  DAC country

  GNP per capita in $(using 1986 population)

  bilateral aid as percent of GNP

  bilateral aid per capita in 0$(using 1986 population)

  percentage change in GNP on previous year

  percentage real change in bilateral aid on previous year

  Australia

  11,750

  0·28

  33

  16

  -8

  Austria

  15,426

  0·13

  21

  25

  -11

  Belgium

  14,189

  0·30

  42

  22

  -6

  Canada

  15,778

  0·31

  49

  15

  9

  Denmark

  19,175

  0·47

  90

  25

  2

  Finland

  17,483

  0·31

  53

  25

  16

  France

  15,887

  0·61

  97

  21

  9

  Germany

  18,430

  0·28

  51

  25

  -5

  Ireland

  7,239

  0·11

  8

  17

  -6

  Italy

  13,098

  0·22

  29

  25

  8

  Japan

  19,634

  0·22

  43

  21

  17

  Netherlands

  14,729

  0·66

  97

  24

  0

  New Zealand

  8,753

  0·15

  13

  13

  -47

  Norway

  19,510

  0·65

  127

  19

  -6

  Sweden

  18,700

  0·54

  101

  22

  -7

  Switzerland

  27,226

  0·22

  59

  26

  -3

  United Kingdom

  11,805

  0·15

  18

  21

  -16

  United States

  18,580

  0·15

  28

  6

  -13

  Sources: DAC Chairman's Report for 1987, OECD Press Notice published on 22 June 1988 and the DAC Secretariat.

  External Debt
  Mr. Tom Clarke
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will publish a table in the Official Report showing, for each of the years 1973 to 1987, as a total for all non-oil developing countries for (a) the current account balance, (b) the current account balance excluding interest payments on external debts and official transfers and (c) the interest payments on external debt.

  Mr. Chris Patten
  The information is as follows:
  10
  Mr. Chris Patten
  The information for 1979 is as follows:

  US$ thousand million

  Non-oil developing countries

  Current account balance

  Current account balance1

  Interest payments on external debt

  1973

  -11·3

  -9·9

  6·9

  1974

  -37·0

  -36·4

  9·3

  1975

  -46·3

  -42·9

  10·5

  1976

  -32·6

  -29·2

  10·9

  1977

  -29·6

  -22·2

  15·6

  1978

  -33·2

  -19·6

  21·9

  1979

  -50·7

  -29·8

  32·2

  1980

  -73·4

  -36·4

  49·5

  1981

  -98·4

  -43·6

  68·3

  1982

  -77·4

  -12·1

  78·4

  1983

  -41·8

  15·4

  71·2

  1984

  -25·9

  38·5

  78·5

  11

  Non-oil developing countries

  Current account balance

  Current account balance1

  Interest payments on external debt

  1985

  -28·1

  31·9

  77·1

  1986

  -13·1

  43·8

  74·6

  1987

  6·6

  48·9

  73·9

  Source: World Economic Outlook, International Monetary Fund, 1983–1988.

  1 Excluding official transfers and interest payments on external debts.

  Nicaragua
  Mr. Tom Clarke
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will publish a table in the Official Report showing, in ranked order, for 1986 and 1987, the bilateral aid earmarked for technical co-operation paid to Nicaragua for each reporting member of the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development's development assistance committee.

  Mr. Chris Patten
  Figures for 1987 are not yet available from the development assistance committee. Figures for technical co-operation provided to Nicaragua in 1986 are as follows:

  US$ millions

  Italy

  7·12

  Germany

  5·40

  Finland

  5·38

  Netherlands

  4·94

  Sweden

  3·54

  France

  2·07

  Norway

  0·62

  Switzerland

  10·30

  Denmark

  0·23

  Japan

  0·16

  Canada

  0·06

  Belgium

  0·02

  Australia

  —

  Austria

  —

  Ireland

  —

  New Zealand

  —

  United Kingdom

  —

  United States of America

  —

  1 Estimate.

  Note: "—" in the table signifies disbursements of less than $5,000. Figures compiled by the development assistance committee provide insufficient evidence to rank these countries; they are ordered here alphabetically.

  Mr. Tom Clarke
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will publish a table in the Official Report showing for each reporting member of the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development's Development Assistance Committee for 1987 the bilateral aid given to Nicaragua in ranked order.

  Mr. Chris Patten
  Figures for 1987 are not yet available from the Development Assistance Committee.

  Mr. Tom Clarke
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what is the level of United Kingdom Government funding paid to development projects inside Nicaragua co-financed with British voluntary groups; and if he will list the voluntary groups, projects and individual sums awarded.

  Mr. Chris Patten
  During the last complete financial year—1987–88—grants totalling £47,065 were paid under 12
  the joint funding scheme to British voluntary agencies in order to co-fund 10 of their development projects in Nicaragua. The details are:

  Agency

  Project Name

  Grant in 1987–88 £

  CAFOD

  Agricultural Development

  3,117

  CAFOD

  Vocational Training and Workshops (in tailoring and embroidery skills) for women prisoners

  2,477

  Christian Aid

  Las Segovias; Mother and Child Health Programme

  8,403

  Christian Aid

  Production and Distribution of Medicinal Plants

  1,541

  OXFAM

  Technical Assistance for Project Evaluation/Implementation

  3,907

  OXFAM

  Training Programme for Health Promoters

  5,245

  OXFAM

  INPESCA: Food Production; Purchase of Generators

  3,079

  OXFAM

  Agricultural Development Programme

  10,280

  OXFAM

  Agricultural Development with Rama Indians

  6,516

  OXFAM

  Appropriate Technology Project: Building Techniques

  2,500

  Total

  £47,065

  UNICEF
  Mr. Tom Clarke
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he is now able to give finalised figures for per capita contributions to the United Nations International Children's Emergency Relief Fund from Organisation for Economic Co-operation Development member countries for 1987.

  Mr. Chris Patten
  The preliminary figures I gave the hon. Member on 25 April, at column 167, are now final.

  Kampuchea
  Mr. Tom Clarke
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, pursuant to his answer to the hon. Member for Monklands West of 13 May,Official Report, column 249, what international efforts the United Kingdom Government has made to organise humanitarian assistance to Kampuchea in the context of international relief efforts.

  Mr. Chris Patten
  We are considering what response, if any, we shall be making to the Food and Agriculture Organisation appeal for food aid for Cambodia.

  Rain Forests
  Mr. Wray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will list the specific projects in which the United Kingdom or the European Community are taking part in order to protect the rain forests in(a) Brazil, (b) Cameroon, (c) Ghana, (d) Ivory Coast, (e) Malaysia and (f) other Asian, African or Latin American countries.

  Mr. Chris Patten
  Bilateral projects in the countries listed are:

  Brazil

  Rain forest regeneration study on Maraca Island.

  Cameroon

  Rehabilitation of Limbe botanical garden as a centre for conservation of rain forest species.

  13

  Support for Korup national rain forest park.

  Research into ectomycorrhizas in nutrient cycling and forest dynamics in lowland tropical rain forest

  Ghana

  Inventory of forest reserves and preparation of management plans.

  Ivory Coast

  Commonwealth Development Corporation loans for the establishment and replanting of tropical hardwood plantations which relieve pressure on natural forests.

  Malaysia

  No bilateral projects.

  Other Countries:

  Belize

  Technical assistance for the forestry sector review under the tropical forestry action plan.

  Costa Rica

  Tropical moist forest management research.

  Honduras

  Technical assistance in broadleaf forest management

  Nigeria

  Oban national park, assistance in tropical moist forest conservation

  Sierra Leone

  Research in the management of tropical moist forest conservation

  Information provided to us by the European

  Home helps (expressed as whole time equivalent) per thousand population (all ages), Wales 1979–87

  As at 30 September

  1979

  1980

  1981

  1982

  1983

  1984

  1985

  1986

  11987

  Clwyd

  0·80

  0·77

  0·77

  0·77

  0·86

  0·88

  0·97

  0·99

  1·15

  Dyfed

  0·80

  0·94

  0·95

  1·00

  1·00

  1·00

  1·00

  1·03

  1·16

  Gwent

  1·14

  1·22

  1·25

  1·31

  1·20

  1·42

  1·44

  1·47

  1·53

  Gwynedd

  1·27

  1·08

  1·25

  1·19

  1·18

  1·16

  1·14

  1·18

  1·25

  Mid Glamorgan

  1·21

  1·21

  1·32

  1·33

  1·54

  1·59

  1·62

  1·76

  1·89

  Powys

  0·98

  0·97

  0·92

  0·74

  0·86

  1·03

  1·02

  1·10

  1·09

  South Glamorgan

  1·00

  1·00

  1·00

  0·89

  1·07

  1·07

  1·01

  1·01

  1·04

  West Glamorgan

  0·80

  0·81

  0·88

  1·07

  1·22

  1·38

  1·59

  1·50

  1·50

  Wales2

  1·00

  1·02

  1·06

  1·08

  1·16

  1·23

  1·27

  1·30

  1·39

  Note:

  1 Provisional.

  2 Figures exclude home help organisers and assistant and trainee home help organisers.

  Clinical Immunologists
  Dr. Marek
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will give(a) the number and (b) the locations of clinical immunologists in Wales; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Grist
  The information requested is not available centrally. Clinical immunology is not classified as a separate specialty in the manpower returns collected by the Department. Doctors practising in this field are shown against their main specialty and are therefore not identified as such in central records.

  Advance Factories
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will increase the case allocation to the Welsh Development Agency for the construction of more advance factories throughout Wales and specifically at sites on Deeside, Clwyd; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Peter Walker
  In January this year I announced a 40 per cent. increase in the Welsh Development Agency's factory building budget for 1988–89 and a target for new industrial floor-space of 1½ million sq ft, nearly 75 per cent. higher than the area completed in 1987–88.

  In March, I agreed to the Welsh Development Agency making a start on an additional 200,000 sq ft of property in 1988–89, and to its planning and designing a further
  14
  Community on forestry does not indentify projects to protect rainforests. I indicated on 9 May in my reply to the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes), at column 9, the level of forestry support under the European Development Fund. We are also aware of a project financed from the Community Budget to establish an Association of South East Asian Nations (ASEAN) regional research centre in Malaysia to improve wood processing and thereby relieve pressures on forests.

WALES

  Home Helps
  Mr. Tom Clarke
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales, pursuant to the answer to the hon. Member for Monklands, West from the Secretary of State for Social Services on 13 May,Official Report, columns 273–74, if he will supply similar information on the level of home help provision in Wales.

  Mr. Grist
  The information is as follows:

  800,000 sq ft of industrial floor space to form a reserve list for the current financial year and ensure a continuous flow of new projects into 1989–90. The total cost of these additional packages is £25 million.

  The geographical balance and overall level of the Welsh Development Agency's property development programme are reviewed regularly in the light of demand, and will be factors that I will bear in mind when considering the agency's budget for 1989–90 and later years.

  Cancers
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will estimate the expected increase in cancers likely to result among infants, children and adults in(a) Wales and (b) north Wales as a result of exposure to Chernobyl fallout in (i) the next 10 years, (ii) the next 50 years and (iii) the next 250 years.

  Mr. Grist
  Such estimates are not available in the form requested.

  Howardian High School
  Mr. Michael
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales, pursuant to the answer of 27 June,Official Report, column 7, if he has now reached a decision on the South Glamorgan county council's proposal to close Howardian

  15
  high school and its implications of that county's ability to reorganise post-16 education in the east of Cardiff; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Wyn Roberts
  Yes. Our decision to approve these proposals was conveyed to the authority on 21 July 1988.

  Welsh Language Board (Chairman)
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what will be the salary of the chairman of the Welsh Language Board; how many days a week the chairman will be employed; what support staff he will have; and what his annual budget will be.

  Mr. Wyn Roberts
  These and all other practical considerations necessary to ensure that the board is in a position to discharge its task effectively are under active consideration.

  Uniform Business Rate
  Mr. Alan Williams
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what he estimates the net effect in revenue would be for each Welsh council from the application of the uniform business rate.

  Mr. Peter Walker
  It is not meaningful to isolate the effects of the switch to a national non-domestic rate upon the revenue of local authorities, since it will be introduced together with a different grant system and a different basis of resource equalisation.

  Non-domestic rates based on provisional rating data

  Estimated proceeds from non-domestic rate pool 1988–89 £000 's

  Actual non-domestic rate poundage 1988–89 p

  Estimaled non-domestic rates collected 1988–89 £000's

  Alyn and Deeside

  1,538

  35·1

  1,527

  Colwyn

  1,161

  48·1

  977

  Delyn

  1,398

  37·0

  861

  Glyndwr

  893

  40·7

  622

  Rhuddlan

  1,238

  35·9

  991

  Wrexham Maelor

  2,457

  42·2

  2,468

  Carmarthen

  1,198

  34·8

  702

  Ceredigion

  1,415

  27·7

  644

  Dinefwr

  825

  25·8

  253

  Llanelli

  1,646

  53·4

  1,582

  Preseli Pembrokeshire

  1,524

  24·9

  956

  South Pembrokeshire

  865

  31·2

  1,600

  Blaenau Gwent

  1,695

  50·4

  1,420

  Islwyn

  1,427

  43·5

  838

  Monmouth

  1,695

  46·4

  1,678

  Newport

  2,799

  42·5

  4,873

  Torfaen

  1,955

  52·1

  2,382

  Aberconwy

  1,184

  53·8

  1,331

  Arfon

  1,158

  46·9

  1,990

  Dwyfor

  596

  50·3

  609

  Meirionnydd

  713

  44·3

  1,030

  Ynys Môn

  1,489

  43·3

  1,765

  Cynon Valley

  1,407

  38·6

  882

  Merthyr Tydfil

  1,267

  46·7

  1,169

  Ogwr

  2,905

  49·9

  2,525

  Rhondda

  1,695

  50·4

  904

  Rhymney Valley

  2,188

  48·2

  1,611

  Taff Ely

  2,017

  45·1

  2,341

  Brecknock

  902

  43·0

  721

  Montgomeryshire

  1,101

  23·3

  495

  Radnor

  479

  30·9

  384

  Cardiff

  6,066

  20·7

  4,276

  Vale of Glamorgan

  2,502

  27·1

  1,960

  Port Talbot

  1,110

  39·3

  2,415

  Lliw Valley

  1,335

  41·3

  919

  Neath

  1,421

  43·4

  1,401

  Dust (Illness)
  Mr. Win Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he has received a copy of the medical surveys in West Glamorgan linking high levels of serious illness with dust from opencast coal mining; and if he will carry out similar surveys in other areas of Wales where there is opencast mining or other activities generating significant levels of dust.

  Mr. Grist
  Yes. It is too early to comment on whether further surveys might be appropriate or on who might carry them out since the material from West Glamorgan has yet to be independently assessed.

  Rating Reform
  Dr. Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will list for each local authority in Wales what each would have received in 1988–89 from the national non-domestic rate pool the non-domestic rate poundage for 1988–89 and the amount to be received from non-domestic rates in 1988–89.

  Mr. Grist
  [holding answer 21 July 1988]: The information requested is provided in the table. It has been calculated on the basis of a national non-domestic poundage for Wales. This has been set to provide an equivalent yield to that likely to be raised from non-domestic rates in 1988–89 and redistributed to local authorities on a per adult basis.
  17

  Estimated proceeds from non-domestic rate pool 1988–89 £000 's

  Actual non-domestic rate poundage 1988–89 p

  Estimated non-domestic rates collected 1988–89 £000 's

  Swansea

  4,092

  50·9

  4,764

  Clwyd

  45,630

  210·0

  39,591

  Dyfed

  39,259

  219·9

  37,928

  Gwent

  50,276

  208·0

  50,755

  Gwynedd

  27,012

  203·0

  29,088

  Mid Glamorgan

  60,305

  228·4

  46,086

  Powys

  13,041

  210·0

  10,136

  South Glamorgan

  45,015

  204·9

  57,255

  West Glamorgan

  41,807

  263·0

  55,101

ATTORNEY-GENERAL

  Personal Injury (Compensation)
  Mr. Atkinson
  To ask the Attorney-General if the Lord Chancellor now plans to implement the recommendations of the Pearson commission on civil liability and compensation for personal injury or to act on its conclusions; and if he will make a statement.

  The Attorney-General
  In its report in 1978 the Pearson commission made 188 specific recommendations, falling under 16 broad headings. Many recommendations which called for positive steps to be taken have already been implemented or are in the course of implementation. Certain others remain under review.

  Animal Beneficiaries
  Mr. Andrew Bowden
  To ask the Attorney-General what representations the Lord Chancellor has received regarding the administration of the laws relating to the protection of dogs and cats who are beneficiaries of a will.

  The Attorney-General
  The Lord Chancellor received last week a representation relating to a Yorkshire terrier for whose maintenance the owner had made provision by will.

  Mr. Andrew Bowden
  To ask the Attorney-General if he will review the existing laws regarding protection for animal beneficiaries of a vvill.

  The Attorney-General
  Any questions of a reform of the law in this area is a matter for my right hon. and noble Friend the Lord Chancellor, who has no present proposals for such a reform.

  Sunday Trading
  Mr. Stanbrook
  To ask the Attorney-General what representations he has received concerning the decision of the Tunbridge Wells borough council not to issue summonses for alleged Sunday trading offences pending the outcome of the deliberations of the European Court on two cases referred to the court; and what action he proposes to take to secure the enforcement of the law on this subject.

  The Solicitor-General
  My right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General has received no representations concerning the present policy of the Tunbridge Wells borough council regarding the enforcement of the law on Sunday trading.
  18

PRIME MINISTER

  Departmental Advertising
  Mr. Harry Barnes
  To ask the Prime Minister what is her policy on the way in which paid advertising is used by Government Departments and agencies.

  The Prime Minister
  This is a matter for departmental Ministers within the Government conventions on the use of paid publicity and advertising.

  Deputy Heads of Government (Meeting)
  Mr. Spearing
  To ask the Prime Minister what response she has made to the proposal of M. Delors, President of the Commission of the European Economic Community for a fortnightly meeting of deputy Heads of member Governments to reach decisions on outstanding matters arising from the Council of Ministers.

  The Prime Minister
  No such proposal has been made to the Council.

  Education (Funding)
  Mr. Morley
  To ask the Prime Minister whether she has discussed any plans for the removal of funding of education services from local government and replacing it with any form of central Government funding or control.

  The Prime Minister
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Bromsgrove (Mr. Miller) on 26 April, at column 199.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Timber Imports
  Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if he will list the nature, type and value of timber products imported into the United Kingdom in 1987.

  Mr. Alan Clark
  United Kingdom imports in 1987 were as follows:

  £ million

  Wood (SITC Division 24 [less cork])

  1,198·5

  Pulp and waste paper (SITC Division 25)

  657·2

  Wood manufactures (SITC Division 63 [less cork]) (excluding furniture)

  784·6

  Paper, paperboard and articles therefrom (SITC Division 64)

  3,238·2

  19
  Further detailed information is available from the December 1987 volume of the Overseas Trade Statistics, a copy of which is available in the Library.

  Equal Opportunities
  Mr. Janner
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what is the ethnic classification and gender of the equal opportunity officer working in his Department.

  Mr. Butcher
  The equal opportunity officer is male. It is DTI policy not to reveal the ethnic classification of individual members of staff.

  Mr. Janner
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster by whom information on equal opportunities has been and is being collected on behalf of his Department; when and by whom it will be analysed to see whether any further action is necessary; and when he expects that analysis to be completed.

  Mr. Butcher
  Information is collected by the DTI's equal opportunities officer. The information is or will be subject to various forms of analysis in agreement with the departmental trade union side by the equal opportunity officer, the personnel management division of DTI, and the office of the Minister for the Civil Service. The time scales will differ as I have indicated in replies to other questions from the hon. and learned Member.

  Mr. Janner
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster whether the provision for monitoring ethnic origin in respect of recruitment, promotion, career development and training, respectively, are now in hand or proposed, respectively.

  Mr. Butcher
  As part of a review conducted by the office of the Minister for the Civil Service, ethnic origin information has been collected since 1 September 1987 at various stages of our recruitment process; arrangements are proposed to monitor a promotion board before April 1989; arrangements are in hand to monitor the postings aspect of career development in three divisions; and two training courses at executive officer level are being monitored for the calendar year 1988.

  Mr. Janner
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster in what quasi-governmental bodies or other organisations under its aegis he has authority to request or require the carrying out of ethnic monitoring exercises in accordance with the code of the Commission for Racial Equality; and what ethnic monitoring and equal opportunities exercises have been carried out by each such Department.

  Mr. Butcher
  Non-departmental public bodies and other bodies sponsored by DTI are responsible for arrangements for recruitment and personnel management of staff they employ. Bodies are encouraged to be equal opportunities employers, and to pursue practices in the codes of the Commission for Racial Equality and the Equal Opportunities Commission. No central records are held of ethnic monitoring and equal opportunities exercises carried out by these bodies.

  Departmental Staff
  Mr. Janner
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (1) how many of the staff from ethnic minority 20
  groups known to be working in grades one to seven in his Department are in grades one, two, three, four, five, six and seven, respectively;

  (2) how many of the non-industrial staff as at 1 June from ethnic minority groups known to be working in grades one to seven in his Department are in grades one, two, three, four, five, six and seven, respectively.

  Mr. Butcher
  The figures, for those non-industrial staff who responded to the ethnic survey, and as at 1 June 1988 are as follows:

  Grade

  Number

  1–5

  nil

  6

  6

  7

  15

  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if he will list for 1979, 1984 and the most recent year the numbers of staff by grade in the statistical divisions in the Duchy offices and the Department of Trade and Industry, respectively; if he will differentiate between staff in the statistical posts and staff in administrative posts; and if he will give separate figures for the Business Statistical Office and the Office of Telecommunications.

  Mr. Butcher
  [holding answer 21 July 1988]: Direct comparisons with 1979 are not possible because of changes in the Departments internal structure, the introduction of unified grading, and machinery of Government changes. There are no statisticians in the office of the Duchy of Lancaster. The figures available are as follows:

  Business Statistics Office

  Grade

  1 April 1979

  1 April 1984

  1 April 1988

  Grade 3

  1

  1

  1

  Chief Statistician

  4

  4

  1—

  Grade 5

  1

  1

  5

  Grade 6

  1

  1

  1

  Grade 7

  13

  8

  19

  Statistician

  9

  11

  1—

  Senior Assistant Statistician

  2

  4

  3

  Assistant Statistician

  3

  1

  3

  SEO

  28

  22

  20

  HEO

  95

  80

  80½

  EO

  230

  180

  176½

  AO

  407

  277

  237

  AA

  161

  97

  59½

  PS

  7

  6

  6

  Librarian

  1

  1

  1

  Assistant Librarian

  1

  1

  1

  Typing Manager

  3

  3

  2

  Typist

  22

  19

  14

  Senior Messenger

  3

  3

  2

  Messenger

  17

  13

  8

  Chief Paper Keeper

  1

  —

  —

  Senior Paperkeeper

  4

  2

  —

  Paper Keeper

  13

  8

  3

  Office Keeper II

  1

  1

  —

  Repro Graphics Officer I

  1

  1

  1

  Repro Graphics Officer II

  1

  2

  2

  Teleprint Operator

  1

  1

  —

  Telephonist

  4

  3

  3

  Sub total—statistician grades

  18

  20

  6

  Sub total—other grades

  1,017

  731

  642½

  Total

  1,035

  751

  648½

  1 Following the introduction of unified grading, chief statistician and statistician grades were absorbed into Grades 5 and 7 respectively.

  21

  Statistics Division 1

  Grade

  1 April 1979

  1 April 1984

  1 April 1988

  Grade 3

  —

  1

  1

  Chief Statistician

  —

  3

  1—

  Grade 5

  —

  —

  3

  Grade 7

  —

  —

  11

  Statistician

  —

  12

  1—

  Senior Assistant Statistician

  —

  4

  1

  Assistant Statistician

  —

  3

  SEO

  —

  1

  1

  HEO

  —

  12

  8

  EO

  —

  19

  16

  AO

  —

  28

  18½

  AA

  —

  2

  3

  PS

  —

  4

  4

  Subtotal— Statistician Grades

  19

  4

  Subtotal— Other Grades

  67

  65½

  Total

  86

  69½

  1 Following the introduction of unified grading, chief statistician and statistician grades were absorbed into Grades 5 and 7 respectively.

  Statistics Division 2

  Grade

  1 April 1979

  1 April 1984

  1 April 1988

  Grade 3

  —

  1

  1

  Chief Statistician

  —

  3

  1—

  Grade 5

  —

  —

  3

  Grade 7

  —

  1

  8½

  Statistician

  —

  8

  1—

  Senior Assistant Statistician

  —

  2

  3

  Assistant Statistician

  —

  1

  1

  SEO

  —

  1

  1

  HEO

  —

  12

  10

  EO

  —

  24½

  16

  AO

  —

  42½

  43½

  AA

  —

  3

  7

  PS

  —

  4

  4

  Paperkeeper

  —

  1

  1

  Sub Total—Statistician Grades

  14

  4

  Sub Total—Other Grades

  90

  95

  Total

  104

  99

  1 Following the introduction of unified grading, chief statistician and statistician grades were absorbed into Grades 5 and 7 respectively.

  Summary Totals

  1 April 1979

  1 April 1984

  1 April 1985

  1 April 1988

  Economics and Statistics Divisions

  452

  Statistics Division 1

  86

  69½

  Statistics Division 2

  104

  99

  Business Statistics Office

  1,035

  751

  648½

  Office of Telecommunications

  69

  111½

  Ethnic Monitoring Survey
  Mr. Janner
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster when he expects the information obtained from the ethnic monitoring survey of his Department's staff completed in April to be analysed; and whether he will place a copy of that survey in the Library.
  22

  Economics and statistics division

  Grade

  1 April 1979

  G3

  5

  Chief Statistician

  10

  Statistician

  33

  Senior Assistant Statistician

  13

  Assistant Statistician

  4

  Senior Economic Adviser

  9

  Economic Adviser

  21

  Senior Economic Assistant

  8

  Economic Assistant

  4

  Grade 7

  2

  SEO

  4

  HEO

  45

  EO

  80

  AO

  173

  AA

  11

  SPS

  1

  Principal Research Officer

  5

  Senior Research Officer

  1

  Research Officer

  1

  PS

  20

  Paper Keeper

  1

  Higher Scientific Officer

  1

  Sub Total—Statistics Grades

  60

  Sub Total—Other Grades

  392

  Total

  452

  In 1979 the present statistical divisions of the Department formed part of the Economics and Statistics Division.

  Office of Telecommunications

  Grade

  1 April 1985

  1 April 1988

  Grade 2

  1

  —

  Grade 3

  1

  1

  Grade 4

  1

  —

  Grade 5

  3

  5

  Grade 6

  1

  —

  Grade 7

  7

  14·5

  SEO

  2

  4

  HEO

  7

  18

  EO

  9

  14

  AO

  11

  15

  AA

  11

  19

  Information Officer

  1

  1

  Librarian

  1

  1

  Assistant Librarian

  —

  1

  SPS

  1

  1

  PS

  5

  6

  Typing Manager

  —

  1

  Typist

  4

  5

  Messenger

  2

  3

  Reprographics Officer I

  1

  1

  Telephonist

  —

  1

  Total

  69

  111·5

  Mr. Butcher
  The form of the analysis is still under discussion by the office of the Minister for the Civil Service with the national trade union side. We will proceed with the analysis when the discussions are completed. A copy of the analysis will be placed in the Library.

  National Engineering Laboratory
  Mr. Ingram
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if he will list the organisations which have submitted a bid to take over the National Engineering Laboratory, East Kilbride; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Butcher
  My right hon. and learned Friend has received bids from a number of organisations interested in taking over the National Engineering Laboratory. Some of these organisations have asked not to be named, hence I do not propose to list them.

  Textile Imports
  Mr. Tom Clarke
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if he will publish a table in the Official Report showing, in ranked order, the value and proportion of textile imports into the United Kingdom, on a country of consignment basis, for the latest year for which figures are available, indicating whether or not each country is a signatory to the multi-fibre arrangement.

  Mr. Alan Clark
  The top 22 countries, representing nearly 90 per cent. of the total imports, from which textiles were consigned are shown in the table. A full list including the remaining 125 countries has been placed in the Library.

  United Kingdom lmports of Textiles—December 1987

  Country of Consignment

  £000s

  Per cent.

  1 Federal Republic of Germany1

  581,599

  14·08

  2 Italy1

  437,328

  10·59

  3 Belgium/Luxembourg1

  402,205

  9·74

  4 France1

  275,118

  6·66

  5 Netherlands1

  248,220

  6·01

  6 Irish Republic1

  213,831

  5·18

  7 United States of America1

  172,455

  4·17

  8 Portugal1

  170,283

  4·12

  9 Japan1

  150,798

  3·65

  10 Switzerland1

  135,664

  3·28

  11 India1

  104,815

  2·54

  12 Pakistan1

  92,932

  2·25

  13 China1

  83,461

  2·02

  14 Hong Kong1

  79,887

  1·93

  15 Austria1

  78,084

  1·89

  16 Turkey1

  75,682

  1·83

  17 Denmark1

  64,541

  1·56

  18 Australia1

  61,445

  1·49

  19 Spain1

  60,882

  1·47

  20 New Zealand

  59,273

  1·43

  21 South Africa

  48,917

  1·18

  22 South Korea1

  44,102

  1·07

  1 Indicates a signatory to the multi-fibre arrangement.

  Note:

  Textiles are defined as Standard International Trade Classification Divisions 26 and 65.

  All figures are provisional.

  Source: Overseas Trade Statistics December 1987.

  Commodity Prices
  Mr. Tom Clarke
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if he will publish a table in the Official Report showing for each year from 1970 the average price index, taking 1970 as 100 of (a) cotton, (b) metals, (c) wool, (d) coffee and (e) all non-food agricultural products calculating all prices in constant 1987 United States dollars.
  24
  Mr. Alan Clark
  I refer to my reply to the hon. Member on 17 May 1988 at column 384. Data for 1987 are in the table:

  World Export prices of selected primary commodities1

  1970=100

  1987

  Cotton

  242

  Non-ferrous Metals

  186

  Wool

  249

  Coffee

  216

  Non-food Agricultural Products

  266

  1 Based on prices in US dollars.

  Source: United Nations.

  Single European Market
  Mr. Tom Clarke
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what sums have been paid to date for radio, television and newspaper advertising on the current single European market campaign.

  Mr. Maude
  The estimated costs to the end of July of radio, television and newspaper advertising in support of the single European market campaign are about £56,000, £5,602,000 and £609,000 respectively.

  Barlow Clowes
  Mr. Nicholas Winterton
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if he will list the names and nationalities of the directors of the Barlow Clowes companies which have recently collapsed.

  Mr. Maude
  The names of the directors of Barlow Clowes Gilt Managers Ltd. recorded at the companies registration office in June of this year were as follows:

  P. Clowes

  Mrs. P. M. Clowes

  D. R. Tree

  C. F. Newman

  B. C. Osborn

  M. Tariq

  L. Hobbes

  All are believed to be of British nationality.

  Barlow Clowes International is registered in Gibraltar and information about it is not publicly available in the United Kingdom.

  Mr. Nicholas Winterton
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (1) what information his Department has concerning the amount of income derived by the Barlow Clowes International operations from(a) the United Kingdom and (b) overseas sources;

  (2) what information his Department has concerning the amount of income invested by the Barlow Clowes International operations in United Kingdom companies.

  Mr. Maude
  None, at this stage. Barlow Clowes International is in liquidation in Gibraltar and my hon. Friend may wish to seek information from the joint liquidators.

  Mr. Nicholas Winterton
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what percentage of the investors in Barlow Clowes international operations whose cases have recently been referred to him are resident within the United Kingdom.

  Mr. Maude
  The vast majority of letters received by my Department concerning investors who may have placed
  25
  money with Barlow Clowes International have involved persons resident in the United Kingdom. Less than 1 per cent. of cases put to the Department have involved persons resident overseas.

  Airport Delays
  Mr. French
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if he has received any representations seeking compensation by holiday tour operators for holiday-makers who have experienced airport delays; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Butcher
  I have had no representations from either tour operators or holidaymakers concerning compensation for recent delays experienced at United Kingdom airports. Whether or not a holidaymaker is entitled to compensation in these circumstances will depend on the terms of his contract with the tour operator or on the terms of his holiday insurance policy. Arrangements for holiday makers in the event of airport delays was one of the matters considered by the Office of Fair Trading in its recent review of the operation of the ABTA codes. The office will be publishing its report in the very near future.

  Estate Agents
  Mr. French
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what representations he has received concerning unprofessional conduct amongst estate agents; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Butcher
  My Department has received a number of representations alleging unprofessional conduct by estate agents. The main areas of concern have been failure to disclose a personal interest in a transaction, inadequate or misleading descriptions of property, and excessive commission rates. The Office of Fair Trading, which is responsible for administering the Estate Agents Act 1979, has also received a number of representations and issued 12 banning orders against estate agents guilty of serious misconduct during 1987.

  Steel industry1 employment in OECD countries

  (thousands)

  1979

  1982

  1985

  1986

  1987

  West Germany

  204·0

  181·3

  152·0

  147·9

  137·4

  Belgium

  49·0

  43·1

  35·6

  32·5

  28·9

  Denmark

  2·7

  1·7

  1·7

  1·8

  1·6

  France

  125·0

  96·8

  80·7

  71·9

  63·0

  Ireland

  0·7

  0·7

  0·6

  0·5

  0·6

  Italy

  98·0

  93·9

  71·1

  68·9

  65·1

  Luxembourg

  17·0

  13·4

  12·4

  12·5

  11·6

  Netherlands

  21·0

  20·5

  18·9

  18·9

  18·8

  United Kingdom

  162·0

  81·9

  60·7

  56·9

  55·0

  Austria

  39·4

  37·4

  34·0

  32·0

  ..

  Spain

  87·4

  76·5

  64·7

  52·2

  ..

  Finland

  10·2

  10·3

  8·3

  ..

  ..

  Greece

  8·5

  8·0

  4·2

  4·3

  ..

  Norway

  4·9

  4·5

  3·9

  3·8

  ..

  Portugal

  6·5

  7·1

  6·6

  5·9

  ..

  Sweden

  44·8

  33·6

  31·1

  29·9

  ..

  Switzerland

  3·9

  3·4

  2·6

  2·4

  ..

  Turkey

  ..

  21·6

  29·1

  32·0

  ..

  Canada

  53·0

  47·0

  42·5

  ..

  ..

  United States

  478·5

  323·6

  237·5

  220·8

  ..

  Japan

  281·5

  268·5

  259·4

  251·3

  ..

  Australia

  47·0

  41·2

  29·7

  30·1

  ..

  New Zealand

  1·7

  ..

  ..

  ..

  ..

  Total

  1,746·7

  1,416·0

  1,187·3

  ..

  ..

  26
  I have invited representatives of the main organisations with an interest in estate agency to meet me to discuss areas of current public concern.

  Steel
  Mr. Salmond
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if he will publish a table indicating the steel-making capacity of each EEC member state at(a) 1979, (b) 1983 and (c) the latest date for which figures are available.

  Mr. Atkins
  The information requested is contained in the table:

  Effeclive Steel Making Capacily (Production Potential) of EC Member States

  Million Crude Tonnes

  1979

  1983

  1986

  1 1987

  Belgium

  19·7

  17·0

  13·6

  13·6

  Denmark

  1·2

  0·9

  0·9

  0·9

  France

  32·0

  28·8

  28·2

  27·0

  Greece

  —

  4·0

  4·4

  4·5

  Irish Republic

  0·1

  0·3

  0·3

  0·3

  Italy

  37·0

  39·6

  35·4

  35·5

  Luxembourg

  7·3

  6·4

  5·5

  5·5

  Netherlands

  8·4

  8·0

  8·0

  8·0

  United Kingdom

  28·9

  24·5

  22·6

  23·0

  West Germany

  68·8

  61·4

  47·2

  46·9

  Portugal

  —

  —

  0·8

  0·8

  Spain

  —

  —

  22·0

  22·7

  1Figures for 1987 are forecasts.

  Source: ECSC Investment Survey.

  Mr. Salmond
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if he will publish a table showing the number of employees in the steel industries of Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development member states in(a) 1979, (b) 1982, (c) 1985 and (d) for the latest date for which figures are available.

  Mr. Atkins
  The information available is as follows:
  27
  1 Definition identical with that used in the treaty setting up the ECSC.

  .. Not available.

  Sources: OECD annual statistical reports on the iron and steel industry eurostat.

  Export Licences
  Mr. David Nicholson
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what number of applications for export licences were received by his Department during the following periods(a) April to June 1986, (b) April to June 1987, and (c) April to June 1988.

  Mr. Alan Clark
  The figures were as follows:

  1986

  1987

  1988

  Total applications for export licences received by the DTI in the three months April–June

  23,358

  25,496

  26,211

  Mr. David Nicholson
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what targets he sets for the time, after which an applicant for an export licence should receive his licence.

  Mr. Alan Clark
  Straightforward applications to export goods to non-sensitive destinations should be granted or refused a licence within seven working days. About two thirds of the applications received by the Department of Trade and Industry fall into this category. Other applications, which may involve extensive consultation with other Government Departments and with COCOM partners in the case of certain export to Eastern Europe or China, take considerably longer. Where practicable, targets are set for these applications according to the nature of the goods, the proposed destination and end-user and the extent of the consultation necessary.

  Mr. David Nicholson
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what was the average length of time taken to process an export licence application, during the following periods(a) April to June 1986, (b) April to June 1987 and (c) April to June 1988.

  Mr. Alan Clark
  In the three periods stated, some 75,000 applications were received. Applications are handled case by case and details are recorded manually. Information on average processing times could not be provided except at disproportionate cost.

  Mr. David Nicholson
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster how many staff in his Department were engaged wholly or mainly on export licensing work on the following dates(a) 1 April 1986, (b) 1 April 1987 and (c) 1 April 1988.

  Mr. Alan Clark
  The numbers of staff up to and including grade 7 (principal) engaged wholly or mainly on export licensing work were:

  April 1986

  April 1987

  April 1988

  52

  52

  56

  Notes:

  1. In May 1988 an additional seven staff were posted to export licensing.

  2. The figures do not include DTI technical staff who provide technical ratings and assessments of certain applications.

  Ranks Hovis McDougall
  Mr. Harry Greenway
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if he will refer the current bid for 28
  Ranks Hovis McDougall to the Office of Fair Trading with a view to reference to the Monopolies and Mergers Commission; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Maude
  The proposed acquisition by Goodman Fielder of Ranks Hovis McDougall is being looked at by the Director General of Fair Trading under the provisions of the Fair Trading Act 1973. He will advise my right hon. and noble Friend in the normal way on the question of reference to the Monopolies and Mergers Commission in due course.

  HOTOL
  Mr. Page
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster when he expects to come to a decision on prospects for HOTOL; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Kenneth Clarke
  The Government provided 50 per cent. funding to enable proof of concept studies of HOTOL to be carried out. These studies were completed earlier this year since when the two main companies involved. Rolls-Royce and British Aerospace, have been analysing the results. I have since held further talks with the companies. The scale of funding required to develop HOTOL or any similar concept to eventual production would be far too great for the United Kingdom to contemplate on a national basis, particularly since only a relatively small number of such launch vehicles are likely to be required. I have, therefore, concluded that any further development must take place on the basis of international collaboration. The Government will be supporting efforts by United Kingdom companies to find suitable collaborators, but will not be providing any further financial support for the foreseeable future. In the meantime I expect the United Kingdom, as an ESA member and a participant in earlier Ariane programmes, to have reliable access to ESA launchers which promise to be competitive throughout the 1990s.

  Alcoholic Beverages
  Mr. Frank Field
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what is his Department's estimate of the anticipated size of the volume of the European market in alcoholic beverages, by major categories of beverage, following the introduction of the single market in 1992.

  Mr. Donald Thompson
  I have been asked to reply.

  The Department does not have estimates of the anticipated size of the European market in alcoholic beverages in 1992. However, the figures in the table, which are based on industry estimates, provide an indication of the size of the market in 1986:

  Consumption in EC.12, 1986 million litres

  Beer

  25,000

  Wine

  14,000

  Spirits1

  600

  1 100 per cent. alcohol.

DEFENCE

  Low Flying
  Mr. Wray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many flights (i) by British military airplanes, (ii) with British military pilots and (iii) with British crew, would be affected in the event of the Parliament of the Rhineland palatinate state deciding to cancel all military low flights below 300 m.

  Mr. Freeman
  Low-flying training, other than that which is part of a major exercise, is not planned in advance but carried out on a day-to-day basis as weather and other considerations permit. An answer to this hypothetical question is therefore not possible.

  Ocean Surveillance
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if the proposed joint ocean surveillance information centre is to be connected to the SSIXS communications system.

  Mr. Ian Stewart
  It would not be in the national interest for me to comment.

  Nuclear Materials (Movements)
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if the movement of nuclear materials by his Department is covered by the Department of Transport's code of practice for the carriage of radioactive materials by road; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Ian Stewart
  The safety arrangements for the movement of defence nuclear materials are designed to be fully consistent with the relevant civil regulations.

  "British Defence Policy 1988–89"
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, pursuant to his answer to the hon. Member for Sheffield, Brightside (Mr. Blunkett) on 26 May,Official Report, column 327, how many copies of the booklet "British Defence Policy 1988–89" had been distributed at the latest available date; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Ian Stewart
  Approximately 69,000.

  Historic Warship Wrecks
  Mr. Onslow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) what steps he now intends to take to ensure that antiquities recovered from the site of the warship Invincible, sunk in the Solent in 1758, will be preserved in museums in accordance with the policy of Her Majesty's Government as outlined in the answer of the Secretary of State for Transport on 8 March,Official Report, column 155, instead of being offered for public sale; and if he will make a statement;

  (2) what action he intends to take to provide for the proper management of the sites of historic warship wrecks in British waters; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Freeman
  The interest of the Ministry of Defence in the excavation of shipwrecks is limited to wrecks of warships of which the Ministry of Defence is the legal owner.

  The Department of Transport gives licences under the 1973 Act to excavate all controlled sites such as Invincible
  30
  and other warship wrecks in this category. The Department of Transport oversees the conduct of the salvors. The Ministry of Defence has a right to reclaim all salvaged property from such controlled sites at a price agreed with the licensed salvors in the form of a salvage award.

  As a matter of current policy the Ministry of Defence does not pay such salvage awards as they are not an appropriate charge to Defence votes. The items salvaged are therefore the property of the licensed salvors to dispose of. I understand that the salvors of Invincible offered the items recovered to Chatham historical dockyard trust, which purchased a representative sample. The balance was sold by the salvors at auction.

  The law governing recovery of antiquities from wrecks is a matter for the Secretary of State for Transport and I will draw my right hon. Friend's attention to the concern of the right hon. Member over this matter.

  Royal Naval Armaments Depots
  Mr. Nicholas Bennett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence whether he has concluded his review of the work of the Royal Naval armaments depots at Trecwn and Milford Haven; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Freeman
  As my hon. Friend will know, the MOD has for some time been studying the future of several defence activities in Wales. These studies have now been concluded.

  A study has recently been completed into the future roles and tasks of RNADs Milford Haven and Trecwn. I am releasing today a consultative document, which concludes that RNAD Milford Haven should be closed, because the task allotted to it has substantially declined in recent years. The work force, trades unions and local authorities will be given a full opportunity to comment on the document before I decide what the depofs future will be. The reduction of the task given to the Trecwn district will also affect RNAD Trecwn which is to be the subject of further study. Meanwhile, I am arranging for copies of the consultative document to be placed in the Library of the House.

  A review has also been completed recently on the scope for rationalisation of the various single service forms and publications stores. I have now decided, subject to consultation with the trades; unions, that all the stores will be transferred from their existing locations to form a centralised organisation at the former RNSD at Llangennech. The stores are currently located at the Central Ordnance depot, Donnington, Royal Arsenal west, Woolwich, and Her Majesty's Naval base, Portsmouth. The proposal is to colocate all activities at the former RNSD by early 1991, leading to a projected annual saving of about £1·2 million. The colocation of the forms and publication stores at Llangennech should provided around 250 new jobs in the area, most of which would be filled through local recruitment.

  Radioactive Waste
  Mr. Fatchett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what radioactive waste is stored at RAF Fylingdales; and what steps are taken in relation to its safety.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  The only radioactive waste stored at RAF Fylingdales consists of old radar system valves, which contain an extremely low level of radioactivity This
  31
  is regularly monitored, and results of this monitoring confirm that there is no hazard to station personnel or members of the public from that source.

  Western European Union
  Mr. O'Neill
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what discussions he has had with other North Atlantic Treaty Organisation defence ministers concerning the future role and possible expansion of the Western European Union.

  Mr. Ian Stewart
  My right hon. Friend has had a number of discussions with NATO colleagues on the WEU, both bilaterally and in multilateral fora. He attended a meeting of WEU Foreign and Defence Ministers in the Hague in October 1987 at which the platform on European security interests was approved, and a further WEU meeting in April this year at which it was agreed to issue an invitation to Spain and Portugal to begin discussions about possible accession to the organisation.

  Public Relations
  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) what is the latest figure for the number of staff presently employed in the press and public relations office of his Department;

  (2) what is the latest figure for the number of staff presently employed in the press and public relations office of each of the armed forces.

  Mr. Ian Stewart
  [holding answer 21 July 1988]: A total of 206 staff are currently employed in the defence public relations staff. These include staff in single service headquarters as well as in joint headquarters and in the central defence staffs of the Ministry of Defence.

  RAF Fleet Aircraft
  Dr. Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will outline the problems which have been encountered recently with the turbines and compressor fans of RAF fleet aircraft.

  Mr. Ian Stewart
  [holding answer 20 July 1988]: A wide range of technical problems can arise during the operation in service of aircraft engines. If the hon. Member wishes to specify any particular problems he has in mind I should be happy to consider a further reply.

  RAF Fleet (Resparring)
  Dr. Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, why the entire RAF fleet was recently resparred; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Ian Stewart
  [holding answer 20 July 1988]: It was not.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  Soviet Union (Cultural Exchanges)
  Mr. Harry Greenway
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many cultural exchanges with the Soviet Union are expected to take place in the current year; in what areas of artistic activity; and if he will make a statement.
  32
  Mrs. Chalker
  The following major events have taken or are planned to take place in the current year:

  Event

  British events in the Soviet Union

  1988

  May

  Tour by the BBC Welsh Symphony Orchestra (Leningrad, Moscow, Novosibirsk)

  May–June

  Tour by the National Theatre Company

  August–October

  Exchange of Exhibitions between the National Gallery and the Pushkin and Hermitage Museums

  September–November

  Francis Bacon Exhibition

  October

  British Film Week

  Soviet events in the United Kingdom

  1988

  March–April

  Tour by the Novosibirsk Symphony Orchestra

  March–April

  Tour by the Red Army Ensemble

  May

  Maly Theatre of Leningrad (Riverside Studios)

  May

  Concert by the Moscow Philharmonic Orchestra (Barbican)

  Summer Season

  The Moscow State Circus

  July–August

  Tour by the Moscow Classical Ballet

  August

  The Kirov Ballet Company

  August–October

  Exchange of Exhibitions between the National Gallery and the Pushkin and Hermitage Museums

  October

  Soviet Week in Birmingham

  November

  Tour by the Moscow Radio Symphony Orchestra

  International Debt
  Mr. Skinner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when he next proposes to meet other Foreign Ministers to discuss the problems of international debt; and if he will make a statement.

  Mrs. Chalker
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave him on 4 May, at column 459.

  Commonwealth Secretary-General
  Ms. Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when he next plans to meet the Secretary-General of the Commonwealth; and what subjects he plans to discuss.

  Mrs. Chalker
  While my right hon. and learned Friend regularly meets the Secretary-General informally, he has at present no plans for a formal meeting.

  Falkland Islands
  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether he has any plans to visit the Falklands.

  Mrs. Chalker
  My right hon. and learned Friend has no current plans to do so.

  Chile
  Mr. Harry Barnes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what discussions he has had recently with the Government of the United States regarding the current situation in Chile.

  Mrs. Chalker
  I refer the hon. Member to my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Under Secretary of State's reply
  33
  of 6 July 1988 to the hon. Members for Hackney, South and Shoreditch (Mr. Sedgemore), for Edinburgh, South (Mr. Griffiths), and for Greenock and Port Glasgow (Dr. Godman).

  Iran-Iraq War
  Mr. Teddy Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will raise at the Security Council the current situation in the Iran-Iraq conflict; and if he will make a statement.

  Mrs. Chalker
  Following the Iranian acceptance of UNSC resolution 598, the UN Secretary-General has begun work with Iranian and Iraqi representatives aimed at the early and full implementation of the resolution, the first step of which is a ceasefire. The Secretary-General is dispatching a small technical team to discuss the modalities of implementing that ceasefire.

  We, as a permanent member of the Security Council, have pledged our utmost support for the Secretary-General in his efforts to bring an end to the conflict.

  Central America
  Dr. Reid
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what discussions he has had with the Government of the United States of America regarding recent developments in the Central American peace process.

  Mrs. Chalker
  We have regular discussions with the United States Government on a wide range of issues including developments in the Central American peace process.

  Ethnic Monitoring
  Mr. Janner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what was the grade of the 2 per cent. of respondents in(a) the diplomatic wing and (b) the aid wing who classified themselves as coming from an ethnic minority.

  Mrs. Chalker
  I refer the hon. and learned Gentleman to the reply my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary gave him on 22 June.

  Mr. Janner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether he will place a copy of his updated ethnic monitoring programmes in the Library.

  Mrs. Chalker
  Our ethnic monitoring programmes are updated regularly as new information is received. Up-to-date figures for the FCO will be included in a further Cabinet Office survey report covering the whole of the Civil Service, which will be published later this year.

  Mr. Janner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when he expects processing of applications from the advertisement in the Voice to be completed; whether he will then inform the House of the results thereof; and what other newspapers with a large ethnic minority readership he uses for the advertisement of vacancies in his Department.

  Mrs. Chalker
  The processing of these applications is unlikely to be completed before the end of the year. There are no plans to inform the House of the results.
  34
  Both the diplomatic and development wings have advertised in the "South London Press". The development wing has also used the North London Group of newspapers, which include the "Islington Gazette" "The Wood Green Journal", "The Hornsey Journal", and "The Tottenham Journal".

  Mr. Janner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs in what quasi-governmental bodies or other organisations under his aegis he has authority to request or require the carrying out of ethnic monitoring exercises in accordance with the code of the Commission for Racial Equality; and what ethnic monitoring and equal opportunities exercises have been carried out by each such department.

  Mrs. Chalker
  Non-departmental public bodies sponsored by the Foreign and Commonwealth Office are responsible for arrangements for recruitment and personnel management of staff they employ. Bodies are encouraged to be equal opportunities employers, and to pursue practices in the code of racial equality and the Equal Opportunities Commission. No central records are held of ethnic monitoring and equal opportunities exercises carried out by these bodies.

  Mr. Janner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealfh Affairs in which of the grades DS 6 to 7 each of the people from ethnic minorities are employed.

  Mrs. Chalker
  To provide this information would break the code of practice agreecl with the Council of Civil Service Unions about the confidentiality of ethnic origin information, as it might lead to indentification of individual officers.

  Mr. Janner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs in which grade the person from ethnic minorities in grades DS 1 to 5 is employed.

  Mrs. Chalker
  To provide the information requested would normally breach the code of practice agreed with the Council of Civil Service Unions about the confidentiality of ethnic origin information on staff in post, as it could lead to identification of individual officers.

  I regret to add that in this case the officer in question has died since the compilation of the statistics included in the answer my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary gave the hon. and learned Gentleman on 22 June.

  Equal Opportunities
  Mr. Janner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what is the ethnic classification and gender of the equal opportunity officer in the diplomatic wing appointed in June 1988.

  Mrs. Chalker
  The equal opportunity officer is white and female.

  Hong Kong Stock Exchange
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what reports have now been made to his Department over the events surrounding the Hong Kong stock exchange crash in October 1987; and if he will make a statement on any action to be taken by the Hong Kong Government.
  35
  Mrs. Chalker
  The Hong Kong Government have been in close and regular touch with us about developments since the events of October 1987. We welcome the recommendations for reform made by the Securities Review Committee, appointed by the Hong Kong Government, in its report published on 2 June. The Hong Kong Government, together with the industry itself, are acting as quickly as possible to implement the recommendations. An independent statutory regulatory body, the Securities and Futures Commission, is to be established as soon as the necessary legislation can be introduced. The Hong Kong stock exchange has just adopted important constitutional reforms which will make its governing body more broadly based and representative. We are confident that this prompt and decisive response will help to maintain and enhance Hong Kong's reputation as an international financial centre.

  Broadcasting Exhibition
  Mr. Temple-Morris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if his Department has considered an application for an exhibition relating to broadcasting to the world to be displayed in the Upper Waiting Hall.

  Mrs. Chalker
  We understand that, under procedures agreed by the Services Committee, arrangements have been made with the authorities of the House for this exhibition to be held in the Upper Waiting Hall for a week from 7 November.

  Diplomatic Relations
  Mr. Tom Clarke
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs with which member countries of the United Nations the United Kingdom does not have full and normal diplomatic relations.

  Mrs. Chalker
  We do not have full and normal diplomatic relations with the following member states of the United Nations:

  The People's Socialist Republic of Albania

  The Argentine Republic

  Cambodia

  Libya

  Syria

  We do not have diplomatic relations with the Kingdom of Bhutan, but maintain friendly contacts and conduct official business with its embassy in New Delhi.

  Kampuchea
  Mr. Tom Clarke
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what recent representations he has received regarding the present situation in Kampuchea; and if he will make a statement.

  Mrs. Chalker
  We have received a number of inquiries from Members of Parliament and the public about our policy on Cambodia. Our general policy was set out by my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State in the Foreign Affairs debate on 30 June. We welcome the talks between the parties to the dispute that are due to take place in Indonesia on 25 July and hope that they will in due course lead to a peaceful settlement of the problem.

  Nicaragua
  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if Her Majesty's36
  Government will assign a full-time ambassador to Nicaragua, based in Managua; and if he will make a statement.

  Mrs. Chalker
  We have no plans to make further appointments to the embassy in Managua for the time being, but diplomatic staffing levels at all posts overseas are kept under review.

  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he has any plans to visit Nicaragua; and if he will make a statement.

  Mrs. Chalker
  My right hon. and learned Friend has no plans at present to visit Nicaragua.

  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what has been(a) the staffing and (b) the running costs of Her Majesty's embassy in Nicaragua in each year since 1979.

  Mrs. Chalker
  (a) There was no resident diplomatic staff at Her Majesty's embassy, Managua from 1979 to 1984. A resident chargé d'affaires was appointed in mid-1984. A second secretary was appointed in late 1986, and a third secretary in February 1988. In addition, Her Majesty's ambassador at San Jose, and three/four members of his diplomatic staff have been and continue to be accredited to Managua. A defence attaché and a first secretary are accredited from Panama City.

  (b) Since the embassy at Managua is supervised by that in San Jose, the two posts are accounted for jointly. Because many members of the embassy at San Jose have dual accreditation, it is difficult to isolate those costs pertaining only to Managua. The total costs for San Jose since 1983 (the earliest year for which the figures are available) have ranged from around £300,000 to around £500,000 of which we estimate that about 25 per cent. is attributable to Managua.

  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many visits have been made to Nicaragua by Her Majesty's ambassador accredited to that country in each year since 1979.

  Mrs. Chalker
  Approximate figures since 1982, the earliest year for which figures are available, are as follows:

  Visits

  1982

  4

  1983

  7

  1984

  6

  1985

  9

  1986

  5

  1987

  16

  1988

  4

  1 And one by charge in San Jose.

  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealfh Affairs what has been the cost in each year for travel by Her Majesty's ambassador to Nicaragua from Costa Rica.

  Mrs. Chalker
  Estimated figures since 1982, the earliest year for which figures are available, are:

  £

  1982

  828·87

  1983

  2,523·94

  1984

  2,754·87

  37

  £

  1985

  2,576·04

  1986

  1,466·71

  1987

  1 1,622·14

  1988

  1,456·54

  1 Plus £400 for one visit by charge.

  Central American Parliament
  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations have been made to the Governments of Costa Rica and El Salvador regarding the ratification of the Central American Parliament treaty.

  Mrs. Chalker
  We and our European partners have on a number of occasions called on all the signatories of the Esquipulas II peace agreement to fulfil their outstanding obligations under the agreement without delay. Ratification of the Central American Parliament treaty is, of course, a matter for the national Parliaments rather than Governments.

  Endangered Species
  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, pursuant to his answer of 19 July, if he will give details of the 143 seizures of endangered species made by the Hong Kong authorities in the first six months of 1988.

  Mrs. Chalker
  Details of the 143 seizures of endangered species made by the Hong Kong authorities in the first six months of 1988 are:

  Species

  Stuffed Sea Turtles

  21

  Parrots

  12 (live)

  Pangolin Meat

  40 Kg

  Birds of Prey and Owls

  18 (live); 20 (dead)

  Elephant

  28 tusks: 200 Kg cut pieces: 1 skin

  Deer Antler

  29 pieces

  Wild Cats

  2 carcases: 430 skins and 10 parts

  Alligator/Crocodile

  4 skins and 11 stuffed animals

  Asiatic Bony Tongue Fish

  14 (live)

  Giant Salamander

  1 (live)

  Lizard/Snake Skin

  3,767 pieces

  Otter Skin

  1,020 pieces

  Seal Skin

  1 piece

  Butterfly

  8

NORTHERN IRELAND

  64 Main Road, Cloughey
  Mr. John D. Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland whether a repair grant has now been approved for the dwelling at 64 Main road, Cloughey; and when this dwelling was constructed.

  Mr. Needham
  This is a matter for the Northern Ireland Housing Executive but I am advised by the chairman of the executive that an application for repairs grant in respect of 64 Main road, Cloughey, was approved by the executive in March 1988. In the course of processing the application, the executive was led to believe that the dwelling was constructed before 1957 and, therefore, qualified for consideration for grant-aid. It subsequently transpired that the dwelling was constructed in 1964.

  Residential Care Homes
  Mr. Andrew Bowden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will give the number of voluntary, private and local authority residential care homes for elderly people in Northern Ireland; and, in each case, what is the total number of places available.

  Mr. Needham
  At 31 December 1986, the latest date for which figures are available, the position was as follows:

  Type

  Number of homes

  Available places

  Voluntary

  46

  1,239

  Private

  39

  388

  Statutory1

  82

  3,506

  1 In Northern Ireland local aulhorities have no responsibility for statutory residential homes: these are provided and operated by the four Health and Social Services Boards.

  Secretary of State's Pleasure
  Mr. Hayward
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he is now in a position to make a further statement about Secretary of State pleasure cases in Northern Ireland.

  Mr. Tom King
  The highest total of persons detarined during the Secretary of State's pleasure for murder was reached in 1982, when for a time there were 66 such cases; at the beginning of 1986 there were 55. There are now 33, including one sentenced only on 1 July this year. Of these six have been given provisional release dates, and the judiciary are being consulted (as required by law) in another three cases about the possibility of fixing release dates.

  Of the remaining 17 prisoners who have served more than eight years and therefore meet the existing criterion for a first review, one has recently been sentenced to a fixed term of imprisonment for offences related to the Maze escape. Review dates have been fixed by the life sentence review board for all the remaining prisoners. Four of the cases are due for review before the end of this year, seven in February or April next year, four later in 1989 and one in April 1990. Two of the prisoners whose reviews are due in February and June 1989 will have them brought forward to the end of this year in consequence of the review of special category prisoners serving indeterminate sentences which I announced in reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Tatton (Mr. Hamilton) on 7 June at column 464.

  Having given very careful thought to the particular circumstances of this group of prisoners, my right hon. Friend the Minister of State and I have decided to bring forward the timetable of reviews so that all the prisoners who have served more than eight years will have their cases reviewed by the life sentence review board before the end of 1988.

  Rural Wales (NPCI Package)
  Mr. Hume
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northem Ireland (1) what account he will take of the NPCI package for rural Wales under the regional fund in his considerations about an integrated rural development plan for Northern Ireland;

  (2) what consideration the Government have given to the Hume resolution in the European Parlianent on an

  39
  integrated rural development programme for Northern Ireland, the Maher report outlining and recommending such a programme and the European Commission's response to those proposals; and whether the Government have any plans to pursue such a programme.

  Mr. Needham
  [holding answer 20 July 1988]: In considering ways in which to maximise the benefits to Northern Ireland of funds available from the European Community account is taken of the proposal supported by the European Parliament for an integrated rural development programme and of other relevant proposals.

  Housing
  Mr. Alton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what is the breakdown of housing stock by percentage and type in Northern Ireland.

  Mr. Needham
  [holding answer 21 July 1988]: Details of housing stock by tenure type are given in table 1.2B of "Housing Statistics 87" published by the Department of the Environment (Northern Ireland), a copy of which is available in the Library.

  Mr. Alton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what percentage of the housing stock is terraced housing in Northern Ireland.

  Mr. Needham
  [holding answer 21 July 1988]: Details of housing stock by type of building are given in tables 9.2 and 9.3 of "Housing Statistics 87" published by the Department of the Environment (Northern Ireland), a copy of which is available in the Library.

  Mr. Alton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what percentage of the population own their own home in Northern Ireland.

  Mr. Needham
  [holding answer 21 July 1988]: The information is not available in the form requested. From reports of the Northern Ireland census 1981 there were 742,719 persons living in owner-occupied acommodation. This represents approximately 50 per cent. of the usually resident population as enumerated in the 1981 census.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Remand Prisoners
  Mr. Butler
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many hours were spent by police officers on the care and custody of remand prisoners in the latest available year.

  Passports issued

  1983

  1984

  1985

  1986

  1987

  1988

  January

  122,263

  119,037

  117,566

  132,122

  121,591

  141,213

  February

  181,634

  185,082

  145,259

  176,020

  192,834

  215,925

  March

  239,562

  235,821

  188,514

  186,379

  255,694

  270,641

  April

  228,472

  204,945

  191,373

  270,540

  205,582

  269,590

  May

  244,103

  222,498

  229,189

  270,304

  172,613

  300,501

  June

  239,578

  226,798

  194,712

  231,996

  212,832

  276,937

  July

  226,359

  217,231

  219,992

  257,450

  235,608

  —

  August

  172,536

  166,461

  157,494

  178,753

  211,763

  —

  September

  106,761

  102,644

  109,202

  128,267

  150,137

  —

  October

  83,213

  93,064

  101,594

  116,565

  98,602

  —

  November

  82,983

  83,116

  83,300

  91,782

  100,419

  —

  December

  52,280

  50,608

  60,848

  70,366

  83,545

  —

  1,979,744

  1,907,305

  1,799,043

  2,110,544

  2,041,220

  1,474,807

  40
  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  I understand from the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis that a total of 1,240,721 man hours were spent by his officers on the care and custody of remand prisoners in the year ending 31 May 1988. Corresponding figures for other forces could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Passports
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what action his Department takes to ensure that British passports, reported lost by holidaymakers, are not subsequently used as the basis for forged passports to gain unlawful entry into the United Kingdom.

  Mr. Renton
  Security features are incorporated in United Kingdom passports to ensure that any attempts to facilitate their use by another person, through alteration of personal details or substitution of photographs, will be readily apparent on examination of the document at United Kingdom ports of entry.

  Mr. Gale
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many European Community countries have chosen to adopt the common format passport; in how many variations of colour, by country, they will be printed; and when, by country, they will be issued.

  Mr. Renton
  The majority of the 12 EC member states are already issuing national passports in the EC common format. The United Kingdom will begin to do so next month, and the Netherlands, Spain and Portugal are expected to follow before the end of the year. I understand that, the passports yet to be introduced in common with those already in use, will all comply with the terms of the relevant EC resolution, which specifies that the covers shall be burgundy red.

  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) if he will state the monthly demand for passports over each of the past five years;

  (2) what was the demand for British passports in 1979; and what is the current demand.

  Mr. Renton
  The monthly demand for passports 1983–88 is given in the table:
  41
  The annual demand for British passports in terms of the number of passports issued in 1979, 1987 and 1988 to the end of June, is as follows:

  Number

  1979

  1,809,091

  1987

  2,041,220

  1 1988

  1,474,807

  1 January to June.

  I regret that the annual figures for passports issued during 1979, 1983, 1985 and 1987 given in my reply to a question on 23 June at column 679 from my hon. Friend the Member for Barrow and Furness (Mr. Franks) were incorrect. I shall write to the hon. Member when I have established how the errors arose.

  Home Defence
  Mr. Thorne
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what criteria are used in determining the degree of protection provided to the general public in his home defence and civil protection policy.

  Mr. John Patten
  The level of civil defence protection must be proportionate to the risk of war in Europe, which is presently considered to be very low. Policy development in this area is based upon section 7 of the emergency planning guidance to local authorities, copies of which are in the Library.

  Mr. Thorne
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) what provision he has made for the building, and conversion of existing buildings to offer shelter and protection to the general public in time of war;

  (2) what protection is available to the general public against (i) nuclear and (ii) chemical attack in time of war; and if these include the issue of respirators and protective clothing to all citizens.

  Mr. John Patten
  Public provision of purpose-built shelters cannot be justified because of the high cost. Successive Governments have concluded that people should stay in their homes, using and improving the available protection. Local authorities have a duty to plan for the use of existing structures as shelter for people who would be unable to achieve useful protection in their homes. In the event of a war crisis, advice would be given on expedient measures to improve protection in the home. The manual "Domestic Nuclear Shelters—Technical Guidance", copies of which are in the Library, gives details of designs for purpose-built and improvised shelters. In respect of chemical attack, studies into effects and protective measures are continuing.

  Immigration
  Ms. Richardson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) how many children(a) under the age of five years, (b) between the ages of five and 15 years, and (c) between the ages of 16 and 18 years, were detained under Immigration Act powers by individual Immigration Act detention centres in each of the years 1985, 1986 and 1987;

  (2) what was the average length of time spent in detention by the children detained under the Immigration Act powers (a) under the age of five years (b) between the ages of five and 15 years and (c) between the ages of 16 and 18 years in each of the years in 1985, 1986 and 1987;
  42
  (3) how many children (a) under the age of five years (b) between the ages of five and 15 years and (c) between the ages of 16 and 18 years were detained under the Immigration Act powers by nationality in each of the years 1985, 1986 and 1987.

  Mr. Renton
  The information requested is not centrally recorded and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Mr. Tom Clarke
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many prosecutions have been brought under the Immigration (Carriers' Liability) Act 1987.

  Mr. Renton
  None. The Act creates a liability which is pursuable in the civil courts: no such proceedings have yet been instituted.

  Mr. Madden
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many applications for(a) single entry and (b) multiple entry visit visas were (i) received, (ii) granted and (iii) refused at each post in (x) the Indian subcontinent, (y) Ghana and (z) Nigeria in each quarter of 1987 and the first quarter of 1988; and what was the delay between application and interview of those whose applications were felt to need a second or long interview at each of the above posts in (1) January 1987, (2) June 1987, (3) January 1988 and (4) the nearest available date.

  Mr. Renton
  [holding answer 20 July 1988]: The information available on applications for a visit visa is given in the following tables. Separate information on applications for single entry and multiple entry visas is not available.

  Table 1 Persons applying for a visit visa to the United Kingdom

  Number of persons

  Post

  Applications

  Newiy received1

  Granted2

  Refused initially

  Dhaka

  1987

  1st quarter

  1,600

  1,130

  370

  2nd quarter

  2,770

  2,070

  490

  3rd quarter

  2,700

  1,970

  480

  4th quarter

  1,710

  1,190

  320

  Year

  8,790

  6,360

  1,670

  1988

  1st quarter

  2,020

  1,410

  380

  New Delhi

  1987

  1st quarter

  6,680

  5,590

  590

  2nd quarter

  14,640

  13,490

  1,240

  3rd quarter

  11,000

  9,620

  1,050

  4th quarter

  6,380

  5,410

  750

  Year

  38,700

  34,100

  3,620

  1988

  1st quarter

  7,120

  5,740

  800

  Bombay

  1987

  1st quarter

  6,540

  5,910

  120

  2nd quarter

  17,820

  17,000

  360

  3rd quarter

  10,900

  10,120

  340

  4th quarter

  5,390

  4,980

  280

  Year

  40,660

  38,020

  1,100

  1988

  1st quarter

  6,650

  6,230

  260

  43

  Post

  Applications

  Newly received1

  Granted2

  Refused initially

  Calcutta

  1987

  1st quarter

  1,040

  1,010

  10

  2nd quarter

  3,000

  29,70

  10

  3rd quarter

  2,340

  2,300

  50

  4th quarter

  860

  820

  30

  Year

  7,240

  7,100

  90

  1988

  1st quarter

  880

  850

  20

  Madras

  1987

  1st quarter

  1,580

  1,490

  40

  2nd quarter

  3,390

  3,320

  50

  3rd quarter

  2,720

  2,640

  30

  4th quarter

  1,100

  1,060

  30

  Year

  8,800

  8,500

  150

  1988

  lst quarter

  1,300

  1,280

  10

  Islamabad

  1987

  1st quarter

  5,880

  4,510

  590

  2nd quarter

  11,680

  9,080

  1,530

  3rd quarter

  8,780

  6,350

  1,760

  4th quarter

  5,240

  3,330

  1,340

  Year

  31,590

  23,260

  5,230

  1988

  1st quarter

  5,650

  4,000

  1,480

  Karachi

  1987

  1st quarter

  4,330

  3,870

  400

  2nd quarter

  9,990

  9,170

  480

  3rd quarter

  7,340

  6,230

  710

  4th quarter

  3,700

  2,920

  540

  Year

  25,270

  22,200

  2,130

  1988

  1st quarter

  4,000

  3,310

  450

  Accra

  1987

  1st quarter

  2,620

  1,700

  740

  2nd quarter

  2,600

  1,990

  530

  3rd quarter

  3,540

  2,910

  650

  4th quarter

  1,490

  1,320

  180

  Year

  10,240

  7,920

  2,100

  1988

  1st quarter

  1,430

  1,180

  160

  Lagos

  1987

  1st quarter3

  3,310

  3,060

  170

  2nd quarter

  14,550

  12,300

  1,060

  3rd quarter

  14,500

  12,940

  970

  4th quarter

  10,490

  9,080

  900

  Year3

  42,850

  37,380

  3,100

  1988

  1st quarter

  9,430

  8,380

  710

  Kaduna

  1987

  1st quarter3

  2,620

  2,360

  70

  2nd quarter

  2,200

  1,870

  110

  3rd quarter

  2,530

  2,270

  160

  4th quarter

  1,690

  1,480

  190

  Year3

  9,040

  7,980

  530

  1988

  1st quarter

  1,470

  1,280

  120

  44
  1 Including applications subsequently withdrawn.

  2 Granted initially or on appeal.

  3 From 1 February 1987 when the visa requirement for Nigerians was introduced.

  Table 2 Wailing time for persons applying for a visit visa who required a lengthy interview

  Number of days

  Waiting time for persons interviewed at end of period

  Post

  Dec. 1986

  June 1987

  Dec. 1987

  May 1988

  Dhaka

  —

  —

  —

  —

  New Delhi

  10

  —

  —

  —

  Bombay

  5

  4

  1

  14

  Calcutta

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Madras

  3

  3

  2

  —

  Islamabad

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Karachi

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Accra

  14

  5

  2

  113

  Lagos

  2

  1

  1

  1

  Kaduna

  2

  —

  —

  —

  — Same day.

  1 Figure for end of April 1988.

  2 Visa requirement for Nigerians was not introduced until 1 February 1987.

  Rapists (AIDS)
  Mr. John Marshall
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many of the convicted rapists who have been paroled in the last four years were suffering from AIDS when paroled.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  None to our knowledge.

  Police Helicopter Landing Pads (South Yorkshire)
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many emergency police helicopter landing pads there are in south Yorkshire for use in emergencies; where they are sited; and if prior permission was sought from local authorities or private landowners.

  Mr. John Patten
  The following 23 locations have been identified by South Yorkshire police as sites which could be used in emergencies by helicopters hired by the force:

  Barnsley District General Hospital

  Rotherham District General Hospital

  Royal Hallamshire Hospital, Sheffield

  Northern General Hospital, Sheffield

  Lodge Moor Hospital, Sheffield

  Doncaster Airport

  Doncaster Racecourse

  RAF Finningley

  Adwick School, Doncaster

  Bentley High Street Middle School

  Queen's Ground, Barnsley

  Recreation Ground, Park Avenue, Panistone

  Dorothy Hyman Stadium, Cudworth

  Rockingham Sports Ground, Hoyland Common

  Herringthorpe Valley Playing Fields (rear of pavilion Boswell street side)

  Aven Tools, Maltby

  Thomas Rotherham College, Rotherham

  Phoenix Golf Club, Rotherham

  Tinsley Park Golf Club, Sheffield

  Balfour Darwin's Sports Ground, Hathersage road, Sheffield

  Laycock's, Archer road, Sheffield (access to site off Periwood Road)

  Niagara Sports Ground, Sheffield

  Shirecliffe Heliport

  I understand that the owners of these sites have agreed to them being used by helicopters operated by or for the police force.

  Discretionary Life Sentences
  Mr. Galbraith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what action his Department is taking in response to the judgment of the European Court of Human Rights on 2 March 1987 concerning discretionary life sentences.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  The implications of the judgment are still under consideration. Further applications by life sentence prisoners are awaiting hearing by the European Commission of Human Rights and we shall take account of the progress of those applications in considering whether any amendments may be necessary to our law and practice.

  Prison Officers (Ethnic Background)
  Mr. Tom Clarke
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what monitoring of the ethnic background of prison officers takes place in prisons in England and Wales; and what information he has available on the ethnic backgrounds of prison officers.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  In a series of regional surveys all Home Office staff, including prison officers, were recently invited to complete a questionnaire. A total of 0·6 per cent. of those in prison service unified grades VI to VIII who responded stated that they were of ethnic minority origin. A further questionnaire is being sent to all those who did not respond.

  Citizenship
  Mr. Tom Clarke
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is the current backlog of applications for British citizenship; and how many letters of application remain unopened.

  Mr. Renton
  I refer the hon. Member to my reply to the hon. Member for Bradford, West (Mr. Max Madden) on 20 July at column 650. The number of applications outstanding at 30 June was approximately 260,000.

  Political Asylum
  Mr. Tom Clarke
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) if he will show as a table in the Official Report, for each year from 1979 until the latest available year, the proportion of people seeking political asylum in the United Kingdom who were either granted full refugee status or exceptional leave to remain;

  (2) if he will publish a table in the Official Report showing, for each year since 1979 aggregated, the numbers of people seeking political asylum in the United Kingdom on a country of origin basis, showing the proportion each constitutes of the total number of people so applying;

  (3) if he will publish a table in the Official Report showing, for each year from 1979 until the latest year for which figures are available (a) the number of persons applying for political asylum in the United Kingdom and (b) the statistics in (a) expressed as an index with 1983=100.

  Mr. Renton
  Information for the years 1979 to 1987 on the numbers of applications for refugee status, grants of refugee status, and grants of exceptional leave to remain, analysed by nationality, is published in tables 1 to 3 of 46
  Home Office statistical bulletin "Refugee Statistics, United Kingdom, 1987" (issue 16/88), copies of which are in the Library. More detailed analyses by nationality are published in tables 6 and 7 of this bulletin and corresponding tables in the similar bulletins for 1985 and 1986 (issues 12/86 and 13/87 respectively).

  Mr. Tom Clarke
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) how many representations by hon. Members regarding individual applications for political asylum have not been accepted as sufficient to obtain a stay of removal since 3 March 1987;

  (2) if he will show on a monthly basis from January 1986 the percentage of applications for political asylum which had been rejected which were then referred to the United Kingdom Immigrants Advisory Service.

  Mr. Renton
  No central record is kept of cases in these categories.

  Mr. Tom Clarke
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many people who had been refused political asylum in the United Kingdom and decided to challenge the decision through the courts have been deported before all legal proceedings were completed, since 3 March 1987.

  Mr. Renton
  No central record is kept of legal proceedings following the refusal of asylum. There can be no guarantee that an applicant will be allowed to remain in this country whilst all possible proceedings are pursued.

  Mr. Tom Clarke
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will publish a table in the Official Report, showing, for the latest year for which comparable figures are available, in ranked order, on a per capita basis for each member country of the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, the number of applications received by each of those countries for political asylum.

  Mr. Renton
  Full information is not available in the form requested. Some information about asylum applications in Western European countries was given in response to a question from my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Burton (Mir. Lawrence) on 5 July at column 502. Information on the population of Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development countries is available from a number of published sources including the "United Nations Demographic Yearbook", a copy of which is in the Library.

  Mr. Tom Clarke
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what assessment he has made of the effects of the operation of the Immigration (Carriers' Liability) Act 1987 on the ability of people who genuinely wish to seek political asylum in the United Kingdom to do so.

  Mr. Renton
  We do not believe that the Act will stop refugees finding safety and coming to this country when it is the most appropriate place of refuge. In the past the great majority of genuine asylum applications have arrived here without resorting to forged documents.

  Mr. Soames
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if, pursuant to the reply given on 4 July,Official Report, column 418, his Department has yet sent quarterly asylum statistics to the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees.
  47
  Mr. Renton
  Officials have now written to the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees. I am placing a copy of the letter, with tables attached, in the Library.

  Refugees
  Mr. Tom Clarke
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what representations he has received regarding "Charter 87: A Charter for Refugees"; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Renton
  Representatives of Charter 87 have corresponded extensively with me and officials. I met a delegation in March. A number of hon. Members have also written on their behalf. Many of the points in the charter are in line with the Governments present policy and practice. Our main disagreement is with the proposal of a full, in-country right of appeal for all asylum applicants at ports. We remain convinced that this would lead to increased abuse of the asylum process.

  Magistrates' Clerks
  Mr. French
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what representations he has received about the resignation of magistrates' court clerks and their subsequent employment by the Crown prosecution service; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. John Patten
  Representations have been received from justices' clerks and others about losses of court clerks, especially those qualified as solicitor or barrister, and some of these have made particular reference to staff leaving for employment in the Crown Prosecution Service. I understand that figures collected by the joint negotiating committee for magistrates' courts staff indicate that 19 court clerks left the magistrates courts service to take up posts in the Crown Prosecution Service in the year ending 31 March 1988. This represents 1·5 per cent. of the complement of approximately 1,250.

  Birds of Prey
  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) what was the total amount of fines levied against persons found guilty of stealing the eggs and young of British birds of prey for the last year in which figures are available;

  (2) how many successful prosecutions were brought against persons wilfully stealing eggs or young and disturbing the nests of British birds of prey, during the latest year for which figures are available.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  The information available which may be incomplete and which does not distinguish between British birds of prey and other wild birds, show 89 convictions in 1986 under section 1 of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981. Of these, 79 resulted in fines totalling £6,217 being imposed.

  Court Adjournments
  Mr. French
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he has any plans to seek to amend section 48 of the Criminal Law Act 1977 so as to limit the scope for application for adjournments; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. John Patten
  There are no plans at present to seek to amend section 48.
  48
  Mr. French
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he has received any representations regarding the working of section 48 of the Criminal Law Act 1977; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. John Patten
  We have not received any such representations.

  Drug Addiction
  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will give the total of registered drug addicts for 1979 and each subsequent year and the estimated total of such addicts, respectively; and if he will give them also by the smallest geographical area by which they are broken down.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  Information on the total number of addicts notified to the Home Office in the years 1979–86 is given in table 3.1 of the "Statistics of the Misuse of Drugs in the United Kingdom, 1986" (Home Office statistical bulletin 28/87). The same information is broken down by police force area and is given in tables A3.1, A3.2 and A3.3 of "Statistics of the Misuse of Drugs in the United Kingdom, 1986, Area Tables". Both publications are in the Library. It is hoped that figures for 1987 will be published in September.

  Because of the nature of the activity, it is not possible to make any reliable estimate of the total number of unregistered drug addicts in the United Kingdom.

  Passport Office (Staff)
  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many temporary and part-time staff have been employed by the Passport Office in each of the past five years at each of its local offices.

  Mr. Renton
  The information is as follows:

  Peak number of casual staff in post

  1984

  1985

  1986

  1987

  11988

  London

  52

  35

  47

  50

  62

  Liverpool

  27

  14

  32

  49

  62

  Peterborough

  23

  28

  34

  43

  62

  Newport

  20

  24

  31

  51

  53

  Glasgow

  12

  13

  18

  26

  40

  Belfast

  6

  6

  6

  5

  6

  140

  120

  168

  224

  285

  1 January to June.

  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what has been the bill for overtime payments for the passport department for each of the past five years.

  Mr. Renton
  The information is as follows:

  Year

  Overtime expenditure £

  1984

  157,494

  1985

  394,309

  1986

  746,872

  1987

  872,015

  19881

  855,421

  1 January to June.

  Fines
  Mr. Neil Hamilton
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list the total number and amount of fines imposed by magistrates' courts in England and Wales which remain unpaid to date.

  Mr. John Patten
  The total amount of fines and fees imposed by magistrates' courts in England and Wales which remained unpaid at 31 December 1987, the latest date for which complete information is available, was £84,660,000. Part of this sum consists of fines for which the time allowed for payment had not expired. The latest available information on numbers of unpaid fines is that at 31 December 1986 there were about 1,280,000.

  Lindholme Prison
  Mr. Harry Greenway
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department on what date the governor of Her Majesty's prison Lindholme took up appointment; on what date the categorisation for Her Majesty's prison Lindholme was altered to enable it to house non-category C prisoners; and what other changes in(a) management and (b) population have occurred since November 1987.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  The governor took up his appointment at Her Majesty's prison Lindholme on 20 June 1988. The establishment has never held inmates in security categories higher than category C, and no changes in the criteria under which prisoners are allocated there have been made since November 1987. Following the conversion of an existing building, an additional 250 places became available at Lindholme earlier this year. Inmates are being allocated to the new places according to existing criteria. Fresh Start working began at the establishment on 3 January this year.

  Public expenditure (Home Office): charges 1982–83 to 1990–911 (£ million)

  Description

  1982–83 outturn

  1983–84 outturn

  1984–85 outturn

  1985–86 outturn

  1986–87 outturn

  1987–88 estimated outturn

  1988–89 plans

  1989–90 plans

  1990–91 plans

  CIOB

  -0·7

  0·0

  0·0

  0·0

  0·0

  0·0

  0·0

  0·0

  0·0

  Court Services (including Magistrates Courts)

  -116·9

  -131·1

  -127·1

  -147·5

  -163·0

  -181·9

  -213·1

  -225·6

  -240·6

  Prisons

  -15·0

  -0·0

  0·0

  0·0

  0·0

  0·0

  0·0

  0·0

  0·0

  Probation Service

  -0·3

  -0·3

  -0·3

  -0·4

  0·0

  0·0

  0·0

  0·0

  0·0

  Police

  -97·8

  -111·8

  -180·8

  -142·5

  -194·3

  -145·5

  -111·5

  -114·2

  -117·1

  Immigration and Citizenship

  -1·3

  -0·8

  -1·3

  -0·8

  -1·5

  -1·2

  -0·5

  -0·6

  -0·6

  Fire

  -7·5

  -8·1

  -10·1

  -7·6

  -8·1

  -8·9

  -10·8

  -11·1

  -11·5

  Central and Miscellaneous Services

  +2·4

  -4·2

  -2·3

  -5·4

  -5·8

  -3·8

  -4·5

  -11·8

  -5·7

  Registration of Electors

  -0·5

  -0·7

  -0·6

  -0·8

  -0·9

  -1·0

  -0·1

  -0·1

  -0·1

  Civil Defence

  -0·2

  -0·1

  -0·2

  -0·5

  -0·3

  -0·3

  -0·2

  -0·2

  -0·2

  Total

  -238·0

  -257·1

  -322·6

  -305·5

  -374·0

  -342·6

  -340·7

  -363·6

  -375·8

  1 Totals may not coincide with the sum of individual components due to roundings.

ENVIRONMENT

  Planning Appeals
  Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment whether he will give, for the latest convenient period, the figure for the percentage of planning appeals(a) that have been allowed unamended, (b) that have been allowed subject to restriction or amendment and (c) that have been disallowed.

  Remand System
  Mr. Greg Knight
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he expects to publish his Green Paper on private sector involvement in the remand system.

  Mr. Hurd
  The Green Paper "Private Sector Involvement in the Remand System" (Command 434), published today, sets out and invites comment on the options for involving the private sector in the operation of new remand establishments and of associated escort and court duties. The Green Paper identifies the main issues of principle and practice which need to be taken into account. Management consultants, assisted by criminal justice system experts, will shortly begin a detailed examination of the practical implications of involving the private sector in the ways which the Green Paper envisages. The Government will take the responses to the Green Paper, and the report of the consultants, into account in deciding, towards the end of the year, which, if any, of the options to pursue.

  Public Expenditure Survey
  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will provide a detailed breakdown for the year 1982–83 to 1990–91, by nature of item and functional area of charge, of the receipts to his programme classified as charges for the purposes of the public expenditure survey.

  Mr. Hurd
  [holding answer 7 July 1988]: The following figures, which are consistent with those given by my right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary of the Treasury on 27 May at columns 375–76 relate to receipts in respect of programme expenditure for which the Home Office is responsible. Receipts in respect of running cost expenditure are not included.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  Of the 18,474 planning appeals decided between 1 April 1987 and 31 March 1988, 6,955 (37·6 per cent.) were allowed and 11,519 (62·4 per cent.) were refused. In all cases the grant of planning permission on appeal is subject to a condition that sets a time Iimit within which the development must commence.

  Information on the proportion of planning appeals allowed that were subject to further restriction or where the proposal in the original application was amended is not available.

  Housing Associations (Tower Hamlets)
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list(a) all applications for consents to dispose of properties and-or sites to or for the purpose of use by housing associations at outsanding loan debt or less than market value received by his Department from the London borough of Tower Hamlets between 8 May 1986 and 18 July 1988; (b) the date on which each submission was first received by his Department; (c) the date on which consent was granted in relation to each application so far decided, (d) the latest date by which consent will be given in relation to each application not yet decided and (e) the explanation for the delay between application and decision in each case.

  Mrs. Roe
  The information requested is not readily available in the form required. The Department has the following applications for consent outstanding:

  Monteith Estate, received 26 June 1987;

  Glenaffric Avenue, received 17 November 1987;

  Masthouse Terrace, received 7 December 1987;

  Ashfield Street, received 23 December 1987;

  Hadrian Estate, received 23 February 1988;

  Bishops Way, received 18 April 1988;

  Selby Street, received 3 May 1988;

  Buckfast Street and Barnet Grove, received 20 June 1988.

  Cases have been delayed because all the necessary information from Tower Hamlets London borough council and outside bodies has not been available to the Department. Consents, where appropriate, will be issued as soon as possible.

  Government Vehicles
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list the total number of motor vehicles supplied by his Department for use by each Government Department and the number that have been converted to run on unleaded petrol.

  Mr. Chope
  I refer to my reply to the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, North (Ms. Walley) on 25 May 1988. 17 vehicles have been converted so far to run on lead-free fuel.

  Wherever possible, vehicles are now being converted to run on lead-free fuel and as new models capable of running on both types of fuel without adjustment come into the fleet the need for conversion will progressively diminish.

  Equal Opportunities
  Mr. Janner
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what publicity he has given to the Government's policy statements on the subject of equal opportunities.

  Mr. Ridley
  My Department publicised the policy statement on equal opportunities in 1984 and 1985 by issuing establishments bulletins, which are seen by all members of staff.

  Mr. Janner
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many and what percentage of women are employed by him in grades 1, 2, 3, and 4 respectively, as at 31 May.

  Mr. Ridley
  The number of women employed at grades 1–4 in my Department as at 1 July were:52

  Grade

  Numbers

  per cent.

  1

  0

  0

  2

  0

  0

  3

  4

  9

  4

  1

  7

  Ethnic Monitoring
  Mr. Janner
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many and what percentage of ethnic minority staff are employed in grades 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6 respectively, as at 31 March.

  Mr. Ridley
  The numbers of ethnic minority staff employed at grades 1–6 as at 31 March 1988 were:

  Grades

  Numbers

  Per cent.

  1

  0

  0·0

  2

  0

  0·0

  3

  1

  2·4

  4

  0

  0·0

  5

  2

  1·6

  6

  5

  1·5

  Mr. Janner
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment whether he will place in the Library copies of the results of the ethnic monitoring exercises in the areas of part time working and job sharing, reinstatement, special leave, special training, recruitment and the ethnic origin of staff, carried out by his Department.

  Mr. Ridley
  I shall place results of the ethnic monitoring recruitment and staff in post surveys in the Library.

  Ethnic monitoring of part-time workers and job sharers, those reinstated and applicants for special leave and special training has not been carried out, although monitoring by gender has.

  Mr. Janner
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when he expects that the analysis of the ethnic origins of his Department's staff in post in March 1988 will be completed; and whether he will place a copy in the Library.

  Mr. Ridley
  Analysis of my Department's ethnic origin data is a continuous process. An initial analysis by grade, region and location will be completed by the end of October 1988, and I shall place a copy in the Library.

  Promotion Monitoring
  Mr. Janner
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what participation there has been from his Department in the essential training review and promotion monitoring projects respectively.

  Mr. Ridley
  My officials have completed an OMCS questionnaire on equal opportunities training and have participated in the Cabinet Office-led review on training. My Department is also participating in the OMCS sponsored survey of promotion board monitoring.

  Sporting Events (Ministerial Visits)
  Mr. Menzies Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list the international sporting events attended by the Minister with responsibility for sport, the hon. Member for Lewisham, East (Mr. Moynihan) in the last 12 months and the cost to public funds in each case.
  53
  Mr. Moynihan
  The following are the principal international sporting events overseas which I have attended in the last 12 months and the costs to public funds in each case.

  Event

  26 July

  Final stage of the Tour de France, Paris. Cost to public funds, £221.

  28 August

  World Rowing Championships, Copenhagen. No cost to public funds.

  3–7 September

  World Athletics Championships, Rome. Cost to public funds, £717.

  9 September

  England v. West Germany, Dusseldorf. Cost to public funds, £229.

  7 November

  Final World Cup One Day Cricket, Calcutta. Cost to public funds, £1,905

  12–18 February

  Winter Olympics, Calgary, Alberta, Canada. Cost to public funds, £2,308.

  1 April

  FC Berlin v. Erfurt, East Berlin.

  2 April

  Ice Show, East Berlin.

  3 April

  Ladies Handball International, East Berlin. Attended while on an official visit to look at the structure of sport in East Germany, at the invitation of the East German Government. Cost to public funds of entire visit, £690.

  12–13 April

  British National Skiing Championships, Alpe d'Huez, France Slalom challenge, part of ten events initiative for disabled sport. No cost to public funds

  12 June

  European Football Championships: Eire v. England, Stuttgart. Cost to public funds, £277.

  15–16 June

  European Football Championships: England v. Holland, Dusseldorf. Cost to public funds, £341.

  North West Water Authority
  Mr. Onslow
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment (1) whether his Department has asked the North West water authority to explain why 54 of its effluent treatment plants were reported in 1987 as being non-compliant with the authority's own discharge consent conditions; and what estimate his Department has been given of the capital cost and time required to rectify these deficiencies;

  (2) whether his Department has asked the North West water authority why 15 of its effluent plants failed to meet the authority's discharge consent conditions in 1987 because of trade effluent; what types of trade effluent were involved in the cases concerned; and how long he expects this situation to continue.

  Mr. Moynihan
  North West water authority reports that where sewage treatment works failed its consents due to trade effluent this was caused by effluent from farming or agricultural related processes, food production, textile manufacture and chemical treatment.

  Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Pollution is continuing to discuss with North West water authority the reasons for failure of their sewage treatment works. The Government have already announced that water authorities are taking steps to improve the performance of sewage treatment
  54
  works through major investment programmes to bring all works up to standard by 1991–92. North West water authority expects that of its 55 non-compliant works, 31 will report compliance in thdr returns relating to 1988. A further 12 are expected to be compliant by the end of this year. Another six works feature in the capital programme at a cost of some £1,400,000. Investigations at the remaining six works are expected to be completed later this year.

  Winget-type Houses
  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment (1) what is his estimate of the fiscal resources which would be required by local authorities in order that all Winget-type houses purchased from council stocks and presently in private ownership could be repurchased at current market prices under the Housing Defects Act 1984;

  (2) what information he has on the total current market value of Winget-type houses purchased from local authorities and currently privately owned.

  Mrs. Roe
  Local authorities in England have reported 175 Winget properties in private ownership. The current market values of these properties will depend, among other things, on their location and condition. It is not therefore possible to estimate reliably the total market value of these houses, nor the costs of their repurchase at 95 per cent. of defect free value, as the housing defects legislation provides.

  Defective Housing
  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will give an estimate of the fiscal resources which would be required by local authorities in order for reinstatement grants to be issued for a satisfactory method of repair to be undertaken in respect of all council housing stock identified as defective in the Housing Defects Act 1984 which has a method of repair agreed by the Department of the Environment with the National House Building certificate.

  Mrs. Roe
  Under the housing defects legislation local authorities may pay grants to eligible owners of designated dwellings for reinstatement in accordance with the Act's provisions. Such grants are not available towards the cost of reinstatement works to properties in local authority ownership.

  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment (1) what estimate he has of the total current market value of houses identified as defective under the Housing Defects Act 1984;

  (2) what is his estimate of the fiscal resources required by local authorities in order for all owner-occupied houses, designated as defective by the Housing Defects Act 1984 and which have no approved method of repair, to be repurchased by local authorities at current market prices.

  Mrs. Roe
  As market values of individual designated properties will vary, depending, among other things, on location and condition, it is not possible to make a meaningful estimate of the total current market value of all designated properties. Nor is it possible reliably to forecast the total number and cost of local authority repurchases under the housing defects legislation.
  55
  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many houses defined as defective under the Housing Defects Act 1984 have been demolished since 1984; and if he will give a breakdown of houses demolished against housing type and year.

  Mrs. Roe
  I am aware that some local authorities have demolished certain designated properties in their areas, but detailed information on numbers and house types by year is not available.

  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment (1) which housing types have been designated as defective under the Housing Defects Act 1984; and how many dwellings of each type remain in council housing stock in the United Kingdom;

  (2) how many houses, and of what type, designated as defective under the Housing Defects Act 1984 have been purchased from local authorities in the United Kingdom since 1980; and how many remain in private ownership.

  Mrs Roe
  The house types designated nationally under the housing defects legislation in England are as follows. In addition, local designations have been made for certain properties in Dudley; and for Smith houses with additional foundation defects in Dudley, Birmingham, Sandwell and Nuneaton and Bedworth.

  Airey

  Boot

  Boswell

  Cornish

  Unit

  Dorran

  Dyke

  Gregory

  Myton

  Newland

  Orlit

  Parkinson

  Reema Hollow Panel

  Schindler and Hawksley SGS

  Smith

  Stent

  Stonecrete

  Tarran

  Underdown

  Unity and Butterley

  Waller

  Wates

  Wessex

  Winget

  Woolaway

  Information on the numbers, by type, of prefabricated reinforced concrete dwellings designed before 1960 in private and public ownership, was obtained in 1983, and updated in July 1986, to include Smith houses. Copies of this material are in the Library. We have been assembling updated information from local authorities on the numbers of designated types (including Boswell) and this should be available shortly. No information is available specifically on the numbers sold by local authorities since 1980.

  The library also contains local authorities' own HIP returns for 1987, giving total numbers of designated properties in local authority and private ownerships, though these figures are not broken down by type.

  Water Pollution
  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment (1) when figures for 1987 will be made available for the total amount of fines collected following 56
  prosecutions under the Control of Pollution Act 1974 in respect of water pollution due to the breach of water authority consents;

  (2) on how many occasions the maximum fine has been levied against an offender in breach of water authority consents following the implementation of the Control of Pollution Act 1974;

  (3) what was the total amount of fines collected in each year, following the implementation of the Control of Pollution Act 1974, in respect of successful prosecutions brought against polluters in breach of water authority consents;

  (4) when figures for 1987 will be made available on the number of occasions when water authority consents for the discharge of pollution into United Kingdom waterways were breached by polluters, the legal action taken by water authorities and the convictions achieved.

  Mr. Moynihan
  Information collected by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Home Department shows that in 1986, the first year for which figures are readily available, fines imposed following prosecutions by water authorities specifically for breaches of discharge consents totalled approximately £20,000. Magistrates imposed the £2,000 maximum fine on one occasion. Data for 1987 are expected to be available in the autumn.

  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment why, in view of the number of sewage treatment works breaching his consents, no prosecutions have thus far been taken out against water authorities for breach of consents; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Moynihan
  As announced in our recent response to the Environment Committee, water authorities have major programmes of capital works to bring all sewage treatment works into compliance with their consent conditions by 1991–92. Clearly, where major investment is involved, it takes time to bring works up to standard and, in the Governments view, there is little to be gained by prosecution in these circumstances. However, Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Pollution has recently informed water authorities that it will consider prosecution in cases where works are persistently non-compliant, where discharges are significantly affecting water quality and where an authority has no plans for remedial action.

  Yorkshire Water Authority
  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what action he will take to ensure that the Yorkshire water authority brings all its sewage works up to the legal minimum standard by 1991.

  Mr. Moynihan
  We have made it clear to Yorkshire water authority that effluent discharges from its sewage treatment works must comply with discharge consent conditions as soon as practicable. The authority is now preparing the necessary investment plans.

  House Condition Survey
  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when the results of the 1986 English house condition survey will be published.

  Mrs. Roe
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer given by my hon. Friend the Minister for Housing and Planning on Tuesday 5 July 1988, at column 545.

  Council Houses
  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how calculations for national council house vacancies are made; what formula is used; and how the data are collated.

  Mrs. Roe
  The number of council house vacancies in England is simply the sum of the numbers reported by all the English local authorities for April of each year in their annual housing investment programme HIP1 returns. The number vacant can also be expressed as a percentage of the council housing stock reported in the same returns.

  Birds of Prey
  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment whether he will consider seeking to increase penalties for the illegal theft and disturbance of British birds of prey; and what information he has on the prices commanded abroad for falcons, eagles and hawks.

  Mr. Moynihan
  I do not propose at present to seek an increase in the penalties for the illegal taking of birds of prey from the wild. I have no specific information on the prices which falcons, hawks and eagles may command abroad.

  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what action he is taking to reduce and prevent the theft of British birds of prey, including the peregrine falcon and goshawk, for the purposes of sale to falconers both in Britain and abroad.

  Mr. Moynihan
  Section 1 of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 makes it an offence for any person to take a wild bird, unless he has a defence under any other provision of the Act. The enforcement of section 1 is a matter for the police.

  Pay awards in

  1986–87 from

  percentage

  1987–88

  percentage

  Teachers

  1 April 1986

  5·7

  1 October 1987

  8·2

  1 January 1987

  8·2

  Further education lecturers

  1 April 1986

  5·6

  1 April 1987

  5·0

  1 September 1987

  5·3

  Police

  1 September 1986

  7·5

  1 September 1987

  7·75

  Fire

  7 November 1986

  7·3

  7 November 1987

  7·3

  Manuals

  1 September 1986

  6·7

  1 July 1987

  10·6

  APT and C

  1 July 1986

  6·0

  1 July 1987

  5·0

  1 February 1988

  2·5

  Engineering craftsmen

  1 February 1987

  5·6

  1 February 1988

  4·0

  Electricians and Building trade operatives

  1 February 1987

  4·0

  1 September 1987

  6·8

  Chief officers and Chief executives

  1 July 1986

  5·5

  1 September 1987

  7·0

  Manpower in the 12 months to March 1987 and March 1988 increased by 0·7 per cent. and 0–9 per cent. respectively.

  The rate support grant settlements for 1986–87 and 1987–88 provided for local authority current expenditure of £22,253–5 million and £25,251 million respectively. In deciding the level of provision the Secretary of State took account of those factors which he is required to by statute. In addition, the first supplementary report for 1987–88

  Public Expenditure
  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what level of local government staffing and pay are anticipated in the Government's expenditure plans 1988–89 to 1990–91; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Chope
  The Governmenfs expenditure plans for 1988–89, 1989–90 and 1990–91 (Cm. 288 published in January) provided for local authority current expenditure in England of £27,538 million, £28,500 million and £29,360 million respectively. The plans for 1989–90 and 1990–91 were based on the figure for 1988–89 uprated by the GDP deflator then forecast in each year; they thus provided for spending to be broadly level in real terms. The 1988–89 figure is that provided for by the Secretary of State in the rate support grant settlement for that year. On 7 July the Secretary of State announced a proposal that provision for the 1989–90 settlement should be £29,140 million, an increase of about £1–4 billion over Cm. 288 after deducting the cost of polytechnics, which from April 1989 will be the responsibility of central Government. In making provision for a particular year the Secretary of State takes into account, as he is required to do by statute, the latest information about the rate of local authority relevant expenditure; possible fluctuations in demand for services which are not under local authority control; the need for developing those services and the extent to which, having regard to general economic conditions, he considers it reasonable to develop them; and the level of prices costs and remuneration.

  Local Authorities (Pay and Manpower)
  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what was the level of local authority pay awards and manpower increases in 1986–87 and 1987–88; what level was allowed for in the plans for those years; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Chope
  The main pay awards were as follows:

  took account of the estimated cost in that year of the new rates for school teachers' pay provided for in the "Teacher's Pay and Conditions Document 1987".

  Estuaries (Sewage)
  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment why figures for the volume of raw human sewage allowed into British estuaries are not kept centrally; and if he will make a statement.
  59
  Mr. Moynihan
  The information asked for is not held centrally, because to do so would serve no useful purpose.

  The last surveys of discharges of foul sewage to estuaries and coastal waters were published in 1973, but they do not differentiate between the two types of receiving waters. Details of all discharges to rivers, estuaries and coastal waters are, however, available from water authorities' public registers. Since 1973 there have been major reductions in such discharges in most of the estuaries in the United Kingdom.

  NRA (Sport and Recreation)
  Mr. Denis Howell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment which members of the National Rivers Authority advisory committee have been appointed to safeguard the interests of sport and recreation; what are their qualifications; and which organisations were consulted before these appointments were made.

  Mr. Moynihan
  Members of the National Rivers Authority advisory committee have been appointed for the contribution they can make in the preparations needed for the establishment of the National Rivers Authority, not to represent particular interests. There was no consultation outside Government before the appointments were made. Until the National Rivers Authority is established, it remains the statutory duty of the water authorities to encourage the use of water and land associated with it for recreation.

  Local Authorities (Finance)
  Dr. Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what was the total of debt charges charged to revenue account for local authorities in England and Wales for each year from 1980–81 to 1987–88; and what percentage this represents of gross revenue expenditure.

  Mr. Ridley
  The information for local authorities in England and Wales, is as follows:

  Rate Fund Revenue Account; debt charges and gross revenue expenditure

  Debt charges £1

  Gross revenue expenditure £ million

  Debt charges1 Per cent.

  1980–81

  2,134

  25,215

  8·5

  1981–82

  2,268

  27,810

  8·2

  1982–83

  2,162

  30,197

  7·2

  1983–84

  2,165

  32,366

  6·7

  1984–85

  2,443

  34,286

  7·1

  1985–86

  2,678

  35,105

  7·6

  21986–87

  2,373

  37,113

  6·4

  1 As percentage of gross revenue expenditure.

  2 Provisional.

  The information is not available for 1987–88.

  Debt charges are also incurred on housing revenue account and in respect of trading services.

  River Thames (Pollution)
  Mr. Bowis
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what steps he is taking to monitor the effect of pollution and the greenhouse effect on water levels in the Thames.
  60
  Mr. Moynihan
  The Thames water authority operates a network of eight tidal gauges to monitor the level of sea water in the Thames estuary. There is a chain of such gauges around the coast of the United Kingdom.

  The Department has initiated a research programme into the greenhouse effect which will consider, amongst other things, the impact of any rise in sea level.

  Lululla Arborea
  Dr. Marek
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, pursuant to his reply of 26 May,Official Report, column 310, if he will give details of the consultations between representatives of the EEC member states concerning the proposal to include Lululla arborea in appendix II of the Berne convention; what objections were made to its inclusion and by which countries.

  Mr. Moynihan
  The Department does not hold details of the objections made by other member states.

  Water Authorities Association
  Mr. Boyes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what information he has as to how much money has been expended by the Water Authorities Association on the services of merchant bankers Kleinwort Benson, in their capacity as advisors to the Water Authorities Association on water privatisation.

  Mr. Moynihan
  None.

  Halton Moor Estate, Leeds
  Mr. Fatchett
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment (1) whether his Department will organise a ballot of tenants on Halton Moor estate, Leeds, as to whether they wish to become part of a housing action trust; and if he will make a statement;

  (2) what weight he will give to the results of a ballot organised by tenants of Halton Moor estate, Leeds, as to whether they wish to become part of a housing action trust; and if he will make a statement.

  Mrs. Roe
  My Department has no plans to ballot tenants. However, final decisions on the areas to be designated as housing action trusts will be taken in the light of local views. My right hon. Friend wrote on 11 July to all residents in the Halton Moor estate who might be affected by the establishment of a housing action trust, and I met representatives of tenants groups in Leeds on Friday.

  Imports and Exports (Sale Control)
  Mr. Corbett
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what measures are being taken to monitor compliance with article 6 of EEC regulation 3626/82 in the United Kingdom, and to enforce the provisions of this article.

  Mr. Moynihan
  The Department has issued advice on article 6 sale controls in its "Supplementary Notice to Importers and Exporters No. 6" and looks into any cases brought to its attention. Where appropriate the relevant enforcement agency will be advised.

  Mr. Corbett
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many alleged infractions of article 6 of EEC Regulations 3626/82 have been drawn to the attention of his Department; and what were the results of investigations of these cases.
  61
  Mr. Moynihan
  This information is not readily available, as the Department has no central record of alleged infractions.

  Staffordshire County Council
  Ms. Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will adjust the rate support grant to pay additional moneys to Staffordshire county council equal to the amount of repayments made to the Severn-Trent authority as a result of the Cakebread decision on sewage hereditaments.

  Mr. Chope
  We are considering the representations which have been made about the implications of the Court of Appeal's judgment in the Cakebread case. Rate support grant can, however, be paid only in accordance with the latest rate support grant report for each year. We shall be issuing proposals for supplementary reports for 1985–86 to 1988–89 and consulting on them later this year.

  Block Grant
  Mr. Baldry
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, pursuant to his statement on 7 July,Official Report, columns 1199–1201, when he proposes to introduce legislation to modify the way in which block grant payments are to be calculated for the remaining years of the present rate support grant system.

  Mr. Ridley
  I plan to introduce a short Bill later this Session.

  Homes Insulation Scheme
  Mr. Forman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what plans he has to review the homes insulation scheme introduced on 1 February.

  Mrs. Roe
  An amendment to the homes insulation scheme has today been laid before Parliament which increases the maximum grant payable under the scheme. Householders in eligible dwellings in receipt of housing benefit, income support or family credit can thus qualify for grant towards the cost of loft insulation of 90 per cent. of the cost of works up to the new maximum amount of £144. The increase should enable those on lower incomes to continue to afford loft insulation and derive benefits in terms of energy savings or increased warmth. The amendment to the scheme, which includes a revised schedule of materials approved for grant purposes, applies to England, Scotland and Wales, and will come into effect on 15 August 1988.

  Poisoned Bait
  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will give by number and species wild birds known to have been killed by the use of poisoned bait between 1 January 1979 and 30 June 1988.

  Mr. Moynihan
  [holding answer 22 July 1988]: This information is not available.

  Badgers
  Mr. Amess
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what information his Department has on the number of badgers that are killed each year.
  62
  Mr. Moynihan
  [holding answer 22 July 1988]: No records are kept of badger deaths. However, the Nature Conservancy Council estimates that several thousand are killed annually on the roads. This is the major cause of human-induced mortality of badgers.

  Mr. Amess
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he is satisfied with the operation of the Wildlife and Countryside (Amendment) Act 1985 concerning the protection of badgers; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Moynihan
  [holding answer 22 July 1988]: Yes. The amendment Act strengthened the protection of badgers by reversing the burden of proof upon a defendant, who will be presumed to have committed an offence unless he can show otherwise in cases of the alleged unlawful taking, injuring or killing a badger and in cases of alleged digging for a badger. This remedied a significant weakness in the Badgers Act 1973 and was an important step forward.

  Litter
  Mr. Amess
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment (1) what research his Department has undertaken on the on-the-spot-fines for litter dropping: and if he will make a statement;

  (2) if he will introduce legislation to allow local authorities to levy on-the-spot fines for litter dropping; and if he will make a statement;

  (3) what representations he has received concerning on-the-spot fines for litter dropping; and if he will make a statement;

  (4) what powers local authorities have to impose on-the-spot fines for litter dropping; and if he will make a statement;

  (5) what is his Department's policy of on-the-spot fines for litter dropping; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Moynihan
  [holding answer 22 July 1988]: We have received a number of representations over the past 12 months about the desirability of on-the-spot fines, or, more accurately, fixed penalties for litter offences. Under the City of Westminster Act 1988, which came into force in March, the city council has; powers to operate such fixed penalty system. The council has established a monitoring group, on which the Department is represented, to assess the effectiveness of the system, which we regard as a valuable experiment. If successful, we would wish to consider whether the system should be extended more widely.

  Tyfoam
  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what representations he has received on the safety implications of the contents of Tyfoam, certificated as a method of repair for wall tie failure.

  Mr. Trippier
  No representations have been made to the Department on this matter.

  Manchester-Salford-Trafford Scheme
  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what details he has received of the Manchester-Salford-Trafford integrated development operation scheme; what is his policy on this scheme; if he
  63
  has sent the application to the European Community; if he will give details of the timetable for consideration of this scheme; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Trippier
  A revised application for an integrated development operation for Manchester-Salford-Trafford is currently being jointly considered by the Departments of Trade and Industry, Employment and this Department. Subject to Government approval of the application, it will shortly be forwarded to the United Kingdom permanent representative to the European Community, who will lodge it with the European Commission. Thereafter, the timetable for processing the application rests with the European Commission.

  Environmental Projects
  Mr. Pike
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what steps he will take to ensure that an environmental statement is provided in respect of those projects listed in annex II of the European Community directive 85/337 on environmental assessment which are likely to have significant environmental effects; and what criteria will be applied in selecting projects which require such statements.

  Mr. Trippier
  The Town and Country Planning (Assessment of Environmental Effects) Regulations 1988 (S.I. No. 1199) implement the EC directive for projects in England and Wales which require planning permission. DOE circular 15/88 (Welsh Office 23/88) gives advice to local planning authorities on the implementation of the regulations, including on those circumstances in which environmental assessment under annex II may be needed. Further instruments have been made and advice issued by Ministers concerned with other projects to which the directive applies.

  Dwellings sold by Local Authorities:

  DOE Administrative Regions, Wales and Scotland 1983–84 to 1987–88

  1983–84

  1984–85

  1985–86

  1986–87

  1 1987–88

  (a) Total number of dwellings sold

  North

  8,580

  5,170

  4,750

  4,860

  5,030

  Yorkshire and Humberside

  9,560

  7,170

  6,980

  7,190

  9,870

  East Midlands

  10,300

  6,920

  7,190

  7,850

  10,530

  Eastern

  15,800

  14,330

  12,400

  13,320

  15,200

  Greater London

  15,100

  14,660

  14,190

  13,800

  18,900

  South East

  18,140

  15,610

  12,980

  14,000

  15,420

  South West

  10,890

  8,850

  7,760

  8,180

  9,710

  West Midlands

  15,730

  10,030

  7,280

  8,520

  10,590

  North West

  17,940

  8,640

  8,790

  8,420

  9,600

  Wales

  7,420

  5,310

  4,980

  5,830

  5,750

  Scotland2

  13,010

  11,670

  10,450

  10,950

  14,010

  (b) Average value of dwellings sold: £'000

  North

  14·2

  15·1

  15·6

  16·4

  17·2

  Yorkshire and Humberside

  14·1

  14·7

  15·5

  17·0

  18·0

  East Midlands

  14·7

  15·9

  16·6

  18·8

  20·4

  Eastern

  21·9

  24·4

  26·9

  31·5

  37·8

  Greater London

  26·5

  30·1

  34·7

  40·8

  45·5

  South East

  23·8

  26·3

  29·5

  33·5

  39·4

  South West

  19·0

  20·9

  22·4

  25·2

  28·0

  West Midlands

  15·7

  16·1

  18·4

  17·7

  20·0

  North West

  12·3

  15·5

  15·8

  16·9

  18·3

  Wales

  ..

  15·4

  16·9

  17·8

  18·9

  Scotland2

  16·7

  18·3

  19·4

  20·8

  21·6

  64
  Mr. Pike
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will introduce measures to ensure that developments promoted under private legislation, including estuarine barrages, are subject to environmental assessment procedures; and if he will make it his policy that there be a requirement on the promoter to prepare an environmental statement.

  Mr. Trippier
  It is for Parliament to determine the procedures to be adopted for the approval of private legislation. I understand the Joint Committee on Private Bill Procedure is considering the question of environmental assessment. Where the Government themselves promote legislation to approve a project which would have required environmental assessment if the saving in article 1.5 of the EC directive did not apply, they will ensure that an environmental statement is prepared on the project.

  Council House Sales
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment whether he will publish in the Official Report a table showing for Scotland, Wales and each English region the number of council houses sold in the past five financial years and his estimate for 1988, together with the average valuation and the average price received.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  The readily available information on sales by local authorities, new town and the Scottish Special Housing Association, excluding block sales, is given in the table. Corresponding estimates are not available for 1988–89, but forecasts for sales by English local authorities were included in the public expenditure White Paper (Cmnd. 288–II) published in January.
  65

  1983–84

  1984–85

  1985–86

  1986–87

  11987–88

  (c) Average selling price of dwellings sold: £'000

  North

  8·1

  8·6

  8·6

  9·1

  8·9

  Yorkshire and Humberside

  8·1

  8·3

  8·3

  9·0

  9·4

  East Midlands

  8·5

  8·9

  9·1

  10·3

  10·8

  Eastern

  12·6

  13·6

  14·4

  17·0

  19·5

  Greater London

  16·1

  17·0

  19·4

  22·0

  23·7

  South East

  13·7

  14·6

  15·7

  18·0

  20·4

  South West

  11·1

  11·6

  12·2

  13·6

  14·8

  West Midlands

  9·1

  9·1

  9·7

  9·4

  10·7

  North West

  7·1

  8·9

  8·4

  9·0

  9·8

  Wales

  ..

  8·5

  8·7

  9·3

  9·6

  Scotland2

  9·3

  9·9

  10·0

  10·6

  10·1

  1 Provisional

  2 Scottish figures for sales to sitting tenants only

  .. Not available.

CIVIL SERVICE

  Administrative Trainees
  Mr. Wareing
  To ask the Minister for the Civil Service if he is planning any change in the methods by which administration trainees are recruited.

  Mr. Luce
  The Government have no plans to change the basic principles of fair and open competition. Changes are made to procedures from time to time.

  Civil Service College
  Mr. Cran
  To ask the Minister for the Civil Service how many outside organisations use the facilities offered by the Civil Service college; and what was the financial contribution so gained over the last 12-month period for which records are available.

  Mr. Luce
  Twenty outside organisations used the college's facilities during the period 1 July 1987 to 30 June 1988 and the financial contribution gained was £125,000. The college earned a further £102,000 by letting its facilities to 11 Government Departments. I greatly welcome the use of college facilities by students from the private sector.

  Terms and Conditions of Service
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Minister for the Civil Service when he next proposes to meet the Civil Service trades unions to discuss terms and conditions of service.

  Mr. Luce
  I have informal meetings from time to time with representatives of the Civil Service trade unions.

  Official Secrets Act 1911
  Mr. Rooker
  To ask the Minister for the Civil Service if he will make a statement on the future role of the Civil Service discipline code in the light of the publication of the White Paper, Cm. 408, on the reform of Section 2 of the Official Secrets Act 1911.

  Mr. Luce
  As the White Paper on reform of section 2 of the Official Secrets Act 1911 made clear, the disciplinary code will continue to be applied against unauthorised disclosure of information.

  Conduct and Discipline
  Mr. Harry Barnes
  To ask the Minister for the Civil Service what steps are being taken to improve consultation on conduct and discipiinary issues with the Civil Service unions.

  Mr. Luce
  There are established procedures for discussing these matters with the Civil Service unions.

  Civil Servants (Previous Employment)
  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  To ask the Minister for the Civil Service how many civil servants have previously been employed as teachers or researchers in a full-time capacity in a higher education establishment.

  Mr. Luce
  This information is not held centrally and could be collected only at disproportionate cost.

  Next Steps Initiative
  Mr. Redwood
  To ask the Minister for the Civil Service what progress is being made with the "next steps" initiative; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Luce
  Following my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister's announcement on 18 February, the project manager and his team have been working on the implementation of this initiative.

  The purpose of Next Steps is to improve management in the Civil Service. The main element is the establishment of individual executive agencies to carry out executive functions. Twelve initial candidates were listed in February and a further 17 candidates have since been announced, including the DHSS social security operations. In total these 29 activities1 cover over 170,000 people.

  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport is today announcing that he is establishing the vehicle inspectorate within his Department as the first executive agency, with effect from 1 August 1988. We expect that the next will be the companies registration office, DHSS resettlement units, and the employment service. Work on the other candidates is progressing well and at the same time Departments are considering with the project manager the rest of their operations in line with the Government's acceptance of the recommendation that on the greatest extent practicable the executive functions of Goverment should be carried out by agencies.
  67
  Establishing agencies is only part of the task. The project manager has drawn up an action plan in conjunction with Departments aimed at reorienting training and career management, so that staff are properly trained and experienced in the management of the delivery of services. At the same time, attention is being paid to the scope for giving greater personal responsibility to managers throughout the service, including the scope for increased financial flexibilities and more local responsibilities in pay and personnel matters.

  I shall make a further report to the House before the end of this calendar year.

  Business Statistics Office1

  Civil Service College

  Civil Service Occupational Health Service

  Companies Registration Office

  Defence non-nuclear research establishments

  Department of Registers for Scotland

  Driver and Vehicle Licensing Directorate

  Driver Testing and Training

  Employment Service

  Export Services, DTI

  Historic Buildings and Monuments Directorate

  Historic Royal Palaces

  Her Majesty's Stationery Office

  Insolvency Service, DTI

  Laboratory of Government Chemist

  Meteorological Office

  National Physical Laboratory

  National Weights and Measures Laboratory

  Passport Department

  Patent Office

  QEII Conference Centre

  Radiocommunications Division, DTI

  Regional Offices, DTI

  Resettlement Units

  Royal Parks

  Social Security operations

  Vehicle Component Approval Division, DTp

  Vehicle Inspectorate

  Warren Springs Laboratory

  Departmental Advertising
  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Minister for the Civil Service (1) what is the latest figures for estimated spending in 1988–89 by his Office on(a) television advertising, (b) radio advertising, (c) newspaper advertising and (d) other promotional material;

  (2) what is the latest figure for the number of staff presently employed on press and public relations in his office;

  (3) what is the latest figure for the estimated expenditure by his office on press and public relations during 1988–89.

  Mr. Luce
  I refer to the answers given on Thursday 21 July by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister to identical questions tabled by the hon. Member.

THE ARTS

  Northern England
  Mr. Holt
  To ask the Minister for the Arts what percentage of the Arts Council budget is spent in the north of England.

  Mr. Luce
  In 1987–88, 5·8 per cent. of the budget was spent in the area covered by Northern Arts.

  Theatre Royal, Stratford, East
  Mr. Boateng
  To ask the Minister for the Arts if he will provide additional funds for the Theatre royal, Stratford, East.

  Mr. Luce
  I do not fund individual theatres direct. The level of funding is a matter for Greater London Arts.

  Student Exchange
  Mr Key
  To ask the Minister for the Arts what information he has on exchanges of drama and production students between the United Kingdom and overseas countries; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Luce
  No detailed information is available, but I welcome the fact that such exchanges will be facilitated by the International Foundation for Training in the Arts, launched earlier this month.

  Arts Support (Economic Benefits)
  Mr. Jessel
  To ask the Minister for the Arts how far Government provision for support of the arts takes into account the benefits to the national economy.

  Mr. Luce
  I am glad to acknowledge the importance of the performing and visual arts, and of the museums, galleries and libraries, to the nation's quality of life and to the education and economic opportunities and the environment of people in this country. The arts are a significant and expanding sector of the economy, a valuable stimulus to tourism, and a source of export earnings for Britain. This is a source both of congratulation and of opportunity to the arts and heritage sectors.

  Musical Instruments (Over-tuning)
  Mr. Summerson
  To ask the Minister for the Arts what information he has on the destruction of instruments by publicly funded orchestras as a result of over-tuning.

  Mr. Luce
  None.

  Scottish Arts Council
  Mr. Menzies Campbell
  To ask the Minister for the Arts when he last met the chairman of the Scottish Arts Council; and what matters were discussed.

  Mr. Luce
  I refer the hon. Member to my reply to his earlier question on 4 July, at c. 466.

  East London
  Ms Abbott
  To ask the Minister for the Arts if he will pay an official visit to the Hackney empire to discuss funding of the Arts in East London.

  Mr. Sedgemore
  To ask the Minister for the Arts if he will make an official visit to Hackney Arts organisations to discuss funding for the Arts in East London.

  Mr. Luce
  I have no plans to do so. Funding of the Arts in East London is a matter for the Arts Council and the Greater London Arts Association.

  Arts Council
  Mr. Butler
  To ask the Minister for the Arts if he will undertake a review of the structure of the Arts Council.
  69
  Mr. Luce
  I have the structure and operations of the council, and of the other public bodies for which I am responsible, regularly in mind.

  Midlands Art (Funding)
  Ms. Walley
  To ask the Minister for the Arts if he will pay an official visit to Stoke to discuss funding for the arts in the midlands.

  Mr. Luce
  I have no immediate plans to visit Stoke-on-Trent. Funding for the arts in the midlands is the responsibility of the Arts Council and the West Midlands and East Midlands Arts Associations.

  New Businesses
  Mr. Andrew Mitchell
  To ask the Minister for the Arts to what extent those involved in the arts have benefited from Government schemes to encourage new businesses.

  Mr. Luce
  As at 11 April 1988, 8,646 people involved in the arts were supported through the enterprise allowance scheme, representing 9 per cent. of the total number of people on the scheme. The Small Firms Service provides business advice and guidance to artists in terms of local market research, sales strategy, export procedures and copyright, and training is available through the training for enterprise scheme.

  Management Skills
  Mr. Patnick
  To ask the Minister for the Arts to what extent arts bodies are able to acquire management skills either from the Arts Council or from his Department.

  Mr. Luce
  One of the objectives of the Arts Council is to improve business efficiency and management skills in the bodies it supports. I have also earmarked sums for similar purposes in the grants to the national museums and galleries.

  Modern Dance
  Mr. Haynes
  To ask the Minister for the Arts what resources are made available by his Department for the encouragement of modern dance.

  Mr. Luce
  The Arts Council direct funding for dance in 1988–89 is £12–71 million; the regional arts associations also fund dance. The allocation to modern dance is not available as a separate figure.

  Community Theatres
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Minister for the Arts what funds were made available by his Department for community theatres for each year since 1983.

  Mr. Luce
  Funding of community theatres is, for the most part, the responsibility of regional arts associations. The information requested is not held centrally and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Museums
  Mr. Chapman
  To ask the Minister for the Arts if he will make a statement on the number, type and geographical spread of museums and Government financial support for them.
  70
  Mr. Luce
  The report on the museums database project indicates that in 1985 there were 2,131 museums and galleries in the United Kingdom. Of these, 7 per cent. were directly funded by central Government, 41 per cent. were local authority museums, and the remaining 52 per cent. were operated by companies, charitable institutions, voluntary associations, private individuals, nationalised industries, educational institutions or other bodies.

  The geographical spread was as follows:

  Per cent.

  Yorks/Humberside

  3·2

  South West

  11·2

  South East

  47·4

  Wales

  7·8

  East Midlands

  2·6

  North

  4·3

  North West

  6·0

  Scotland

  7·8

  West Midlands

  2·6

  Northern Ireland

  6·0

  Central Government expenditure on museums and galleries (including support for non-national institutions) borne on the votes of the Office of Arts and Libraries was £95·5 million in 1985–86 and is expected to be some £153·6 million this year.

  Library Services (Commercial Organisations)
  Mr. Couchman
  To ask the Minister for the Arts whether any libraries currently provide free information services to commercial organisations.

  Mr. Luce
  Most library authorities provide some form of free information service to commercial organisations in their area. The range and extent of information provided, however, vary greatly.

  Museums and Galleries (Charges)
  Mrs. Clwyd
  To ask the Minister for the Arts what information he has about the number of national museums and art galleries operating admission charges.

  Mr. Luce
  I refer the hon. Member to my reply to the hon. Member for Clydebank and Milngavie (Mr. Worthington) on 26 May this year, at columns 259–60.

  Tourism
  Mr. Robert G. Hughes
  To ask the Minister for the Arts what is his estimate of the contribution to inward tourism made by the arts in Great Britain.

  Mr. Luce
  I refer my hon. Friend to my reply to the hon. Member for Ealing, North (Mr. Greenway) on 4 July 1988, at column 465.

  Anglo-Chinese Cultural Exchange
  Mr. Fisher
  To ask the Minister for the Arts what encouragement is being given by his Department to further Anglo-Chinese cultural exchanges.

  Mr. Luce
  Mr. Wang Meng, the Chinese Minister for Culture, recently visited this country, and we had useful discussions. However, cultural exchanges with China are primarily a matter for my right hon. and learned Friend the Foreign Secretary and the British Council, who have negotiated a new cultural exchange programme for 1988–90, which was signed in Peking in April of this year.

  London Theatre Trust
  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Minister for the Arts if he will make additional resources available to the London Theatre Trust.

  Mr. Luce
  The Theatres Trust derives its income from the rent for the Garrick and Lyric theatres, and is likely to receive a rent for the Lyceum theatre in due course. I have no plans to make additional resources available.

  Public Lending Right Scheme
  Mr. Jack
  To ask the Minister for the Arts how many authors are now registered under the public lending right scheme; and what increased funding the Government have awarded the scheme in the last year.

  Mr. Luce
  New registrations have brought the number of authors registered with the public lending right scheme to over 16,200. I was pleased to be able to announce increased funding from 1988–89 bringing the fund to £3–5 million, an increase of 27 per cent.; and its highest level in real terms since the scheme was implemented.

EMPLOYMENT

  Labour Statistics
  Mr. Frank Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will list the number and proportion of people who have been out of work for over five years for each of the last 10 years.

  Mr. Lee
  Following is the available information. Claimants unemployed for over five years were not separately identified before April 1983. The table shows the number of unemployed claimants who have been unemployed for over five years in the United Kingdom expressed numerically and as a percentage of the total unemployed claimants for April of each year from 1983 to 1988.

  Unemployed claimants in the United Kingdom unemployed overfive years

  April

  Number

  Percentage of total claimants

  1983

  66,842

  2·1

  1984

  84,286

  2·7

  1985

  136,259

  4·2

  1986

  220,655

  6·6

  Table A

  Unemployed registrants April 1979

  Unemployed claimants April 1988

  Country

  Male

  Female

  Male

  Female

  England

  739,806

  280,194

  1,360,569

  607,994

  Scotland

  117,693

  57,897

  218,158

  90,926

  Wales

  58,729

  25,489

  100,202

  39,871

  Northern Ireland

  43,002

  17,785

  86,782

  31,487

  72

  April

  Number

  Percentage of total claimants

  1987

  272,047

  8·8

  1988

  271,242

  10·7

  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what is the present rate of unemployment in the boroughs that make up inner London; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Lee
  The information requested is not available. Unemployment rates are not calculated for areas smaller than travel-to-work areas.

  Mr. Frank Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what are the latest total national unemployment figures; and how many of these people have been unemployed for more than five, six, seven, eight and nine years, respectively.

  Mr. Lee
  [holding answer 22 July 1988]: Figures are not separately identified for all the durations requested. However the following is the available information. The table shows for 14 April 1988, the latest date for which analysis by duration is available, the number of unemployed claimants who had been unemployed for five years or more, together with the total number of unemployed claimants in the United Kingdom. United Kingdom.

  United Kingdom

  Total number of unemployed claimants

  2,535,989

  Number of claimants unemployed for five years or more

  271,242

  Mr. Clay
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many people were(a) unemployed and (b) unemployed for 52 weeks or more in April 1979 and April 1988 in (i) England, (ii) Scotland, (iii) Wales and (iv) Northern Ireland, broken down by sex.

  Mr. Lee
  Direct comparisons of unemployment by duration since 1979 are not possible because of changes in coverage of the count. Following is the available information which is also in the Library. Table A shows the number of male and female, unemployed registrants in April 1979 and unemployed claimants in April 1988, in each country. Table B shows corresponding figures according to the number of unemployed claimants and registrants who had been unemployed for one year or more.
  73

  Table B

  Registrants unemployed one year or more April 1979

  Claimants unemployed one year or more April 1988

  Country

  Male

  Female

  Male

  Female

  223,622

  54,810

  604,205

  187,074

  Scotland

  35,213

  10,365

  95,910

  27,964

  Wales

  18,047

  4,738

  41,225

  10,830

  Northern Ireland

  16,654

  3,262

  50,841

  11,157

  Factory Inspectors
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what regions each factory inspector covers; and how many are in post.

  Mr. Nicholls
  The information is not available in the form requested.

  Factory inspectors based in the Health and Safety Executive's (HSE) area offices do not generally inspect by geographical region but work in industry groups and have a range of inspection responsibilities throughout the district covered by the area office. The following table shows the areas of the country covered by each of the 20 HSE area offices:

  Area office

  Area covered

  Avon, Cornwall, Devon, Somerset,

  01

  South West

  Gloucester, Scilly Isle Berkshire, Hampshire, Wiltshire,

  02

  South

  Dorset, Isle of Wight

  03

  South East London North and South

  East and West Sussex, Surrey, Kent

  05/06

  London

  07

  East Anglia

  Essex, Norfolk, Suffolk

  Northern Home

  Bedfordshire, Hertfordshire,

  08

  Counties

  Buckinghamshire, Cambridgeshire Leicestershire, Oxfordshire,

  09

  East Midlands

  Northamptonshire, Warwickshire

  10

  West Midlands

  West Midlands

  11

  Wales

  Wales Staffordshire, Shropshire,

  12

  Marches

  Herefordshire, Worcestershire Derbyshire, Lincolnshire,

  13

  North Midlands South Yorkshire

  Nottinghamshire

  14

  and Humberside West and North

  South Yorkshire, Humberside

  15

  Yorkshire Greater

  West and North Yorkshire

  16

  Manchester

  Greater Manchester

  17

  Merseyside

  Merseyside, Cheshire

  18

  North West

  Lancashire, Cumbria Tyne and Wear, Cleveland,

  19

  North East

  Northumberland, Durham Borders, Lothian, Central Fife, Tayside, Grampian, Highland,

  20

  Scotland East

  Island Areas Dumfries and Galloway, Strathclyde,

  21

  Scotland West

  Western Isles

  On 1 July 1988, a total of 548 factory inspectors were in post in HSE's factory inspectorate and 48 were working elsewhere in HSE.

  Collective Agreements
  Mr. Frank Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will update the answer given to the hon. Member for Birkenhead on the numbers of men and women covered by collective agreements for each year 74
  since 1982, and the proportion of men and women workers represented by these numbers at 27 July, Official Report, columns 320–21.

  Mr. Lee
  It is still the case that information is available on a regular basis only in respect of manual employees covered by national collective agreements and statutory wages orders. The information is readily available only for every second year and is as follows:

  Estimated numbers covered

  Million

  1983

  7·8

  1985

  7·3

  1987

  6·6

  Source: Time Rates of Wages and Hours of Work.

  Some figures on the relative numbers of employees covered by various types of collective agreement—national, district, company and so on—or by no collective agreement, covering both manual and non-manual employees and distinguishing males and females, were obtained in the new earnings survey for 1985 and were published in part F (tables 187 to 194) of the report, a copy of which is in the Library.

  YTS
  Mr. Leighton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many people in the London borough of Newham are available for the youth training scheme; and how many places there are in the borough.

  Mr. Cope
  Figures for the number of young people in Newham who are available for YTS are kept by the local authority careers service and are not available to the Department. However, based on entrants last year and taking into account extra entrants this September the Training Commission estimate that there will be some 320 entrants in 1988–89. There are currently 447 YTS places available in Newham.

  Child Care
  Ms. Richardson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what action he is taking to implement those recommendations within his area of responsibility of the European Commission's childcare network report: "Caring for Children-Services and Policies for Childcare and Equal Opportunities in the United Kingdom".

  Mr. Nicholls
  My right hon. Friend received this report at the end of June. It is an interesting document and we are considering it.

  Employment Training
  Mr. Clelland
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many pilot schemes for the employment training initiative are in operation excluding lead development projects.

  Mr. Nicholls
  None. However, a wide range of development activities have been set up covering the issues and themes which will be addressed in employment training.

  Textile Industry
  Mr. Tom Clarke
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will publish a table in the Official Report showing what information he has on the percentage change in the number of full-time equivalent workers in the textile industry, in each EEC member country since 1979.

  Mr. Lee
  Insufficient detail is available in the employment estimates for Community members to permit comparisons on a full-time equivalent basis. The available information relates to all employees and is as follows:

  Employees in the textile industries Percentage change between 1979 and 1986

  Per cent.

  Belgium

  -13·5

  Italy

  1-14·9

  France

  -23·7

  Germany

  -23·8

  Spain

  -30·0

  Netherlands

  -36·4

  United Kingdom

  -38·3

  Ireland

  -42·7

  1 Change up to 1985.

  Source: Employment and Unemployment 1988 (Eurostat).

  These percentages are based on statistics which have been harmonised to allow for methodological differences between countries, but, like all international comparisons of labour market statistics, they should be treated with caution as it is difficult to obtain data for different countries on a wholly consistent basis.

  Training Schemes
  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will list all the agencies currently operating Manpower Services Commission schemes, and name any agency which has intimated that it will not be taking part in the new adult training scheme.

  Mr. Nicholls
  Details of organisations taking part in Training Commission schemes are not kept centrally and the cost of providing the list requested would be disproportionate.

  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what action will be taken against training managers and training agents who fail to meet the performance requirements of the Manpower Services Commission; whether details of such failures will be made public together with the reasons for such a failure; what criteria will be set for the expulsion of agents and managers from the scheme; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Nicholls
  Those training agents and training managers who fail to satisfy the criteria for approved 76
  status in employment training will not be allowed to continue to operate in the programme. In all cases where the Training Commission rejects an application for approved status, clear reasons will be given to the organisation concerned, stating which criteria the organisation has failed to satisfy. The Training Commission reserves the right to withdraw approved status from any organisation which fails to meet the criteria.

  The commission will keep a record of the number of contracts for employment training; the number of applications for approved status; the numbers of applications approved or rejected; and the number of organisations whose approved status is subsequently withdrawn.

  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment whether a full list of all training managers and training agents under the new adult training scheme will be made available together with total payments made to each manager or agent by the Manpower Services Commission; and if such figures will be published in the locality in which they operate.

  Mr. Nicholls
  A list of training managers and training agents in employment training will be drawn up for publication next year. The names of training managers and training agents operating in any Training Commission area will be available locally from the start of the programme in September. Details of payments made to particular organisations are commercially confidential and will not normally be available on an individual basis.

  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment whether the Manpower Services Commission review of approved training agents and approved training managers will include a report on trainers' adherence to the articles of the Sex Discrimination Act 1975 and the Race Relations Act 1976.

  Mr. Nicholls
  Each training agent and training manager contracting with the Training Commission to deliver employment training is required to apply for approved status. There are nine criteria on which the Training Commission will need to be satisfied before approved status is awarded. One of those criteria relates to the operation of our equal opportunities policy and includes reporting on adherence to the Sex Discrimination Act 1975 and the Race Relations Act 1976.

  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how he established the balance as between the number of places for project-based training as against the number in the unified training programme.

  Mr. Nicholls
  Employment training is planned to provide a total of some 300,000 training places of which 194,000 will offer practical training on projects. This is broadly the same number of project places currently available for participants on the community programme.

  Community Programme
  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what action he is taking to protect the 12-month contracts of those employed on the community programme; if these contracts will be honoured at present levels of remuneration; and if he will make a statement.
  77
  Mr. Nicholls
  All participants who joined the community programme before 1 March 1988 are entitled to 12 months on community programme wages and conditions. Those participants who started after 1 March 1988 are entitled to six months on community programme wages and conditions, and this was made clear to them when they entered the programme.

  The community programme will be superseded by employment training in September. Participants will be able to complete their six or 12 months on community programme wages and conditions. However, they may choose at any time to become trainees and receive the weighted training allowance for the balance of their time on employment training.

  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment why supervisors and trainers within the present community programme are to lose their jobs with the introduction of the adult training scheme; and what level of job losses are expected from the introduction of the scheme in September.

  Mr. Nicholls
  The Training Commission funds the cost of managers and supervisors separately from other costs on the community programme. Under employment training the commission will pay a single fee to cover all the costs of training, including management and supervisory costs. Training managers will then use these fees as they judge will most efficiently provide appropriate support for trainees on the new programme.

  It is expected that very many current community programme managers and supervisors will be offered employment by training managers who will contract with the Training Commission to provide training under employment training. In other cases, managers and supervisors may be offered employment by organisations subcontracting with training managers.

  Restart Scheme
  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many people who have attended a Restart interview since July 1986 have been placed directly into employment.

  Mr. Lee
  Between July 1986 and May 1988, some 345,000 people interviewed under the Restart programme were referred to job vacancies. We do not know how many Restart clients end up in a job or other opportunity after a Restart interview since we do not follow up referral.

  Adult Training
  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will now take steps to reimburse trainees in the adult training programme all their travel-to-work expenses.

  Mr. Nicholls
  For participants in employment training, necessary travel costs over £5 per week will be met by the Training Commission, as was recommended by the commission in its report to the Government. This follows practice on other Training Commission programmes where training allowances are paid, and where trainees are expected to meet costs up to a certain amount. However, training managers and their sub-contractors in employment training will be able to meet the first £5 of trainees' costs without any effect on trainees' allowance, or tax and benefit position.
  78
  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment whether all participants in the new adult training scheme will be regarded as employees for the purposes of health and safety regulations; if he will outline the responsibility of employers to employees for the provision of safety equipment and clothing whether designated as essential by the Health and Safety at Work etc, Act or necessary under the employers' own regulations for employment; if such safety equipment and clothing will be made available to trainees without cost to them; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Nicholls
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State laid before Parliament on Friday 22 July regulations which give all participants on the new employment training scheme the same rights as employees for the purposes of health and safety legislation.

  Protective clothing and equipment is specifically required to be provided for certain types of work, under health and safety regulations. Section 9 of the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974 prohibits employers from charging employees in these circumstances. Employers also have general duties under the Act to ensure, so far as is reasonably practicable, the health, safety and welfare at work of their employees. These duties may include providing safety equipment and clothing to employees free of charge depending on the particular circumstances of the work.

  Mines and Quarries Inspectorate
  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what is the total number of persons employed as inspectors by the Mines and Quarries Inspectorate and the average number of inspections made by each inspector per year.

  Mr. Nicholls
  On 1 July 1988, a total of 73 inspectors were employed in Her Majesty's mines and quarries inspectorate of the Health and Safety Executive. During 1987–88 the inspectorate rnade over 15,000 visits to premises. This figure includes preventive inspections, investigations of accidents and dangerous occurrences, follow-up visits, meetings with management and safety representatives, and general advisory and edueational work; some visits combined more than one of these purposes. Consequently it would be misleading to refer to an average rate per inspector.

  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many mines and quarries are eligible for inspection by the Mines and Quarries Inspectorate; and how many inspections are expected to be carried out in the present year.

  Mr. Nicholls
  All mines and quarries are eligible for inspections under the Mines and Quarries Act 1954 by the Health and Safety Executive's mines and quarries inspectorate. At present, there are 123 British Coal mines, 197 licensed coal mines and 77 miscellaneous mines which produce a variety of other minerals. There are also approximately 3,000 quarries, including 194 opencast sites. It is planned to carry out 15,000 visits to these premises during the 1988–89 year.

  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what was the total number of inspections
  79
  made to mines and quarries within the United Kingdom by the Mines and Quarries Inspectorate for the last year for which figures are available.

  Mr. Nicholls
  During the year 1987–88, the Health and Safety Executive's mines and quarries inspectorate recorded 7,066 visits to mines, 4,438 visits to quarries and 745 visits to opencast coal sites. In addition, there were 72 visits to mines rescue stations and 199 to other premises. A further 2,442 visits were made to mines and quarries offices.

  Agricultural Inspectorate
  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what is the total number of establishments which require visits from the agricultural inspectorate; how many such visits were made in the last year for which figures are available; and how many inspections are expected to be made in the present year.

  Mr. Nicholls
  The Health and Safety Executive's agricultural inspectorate is the enforcing authority for 279,051 establishments. In the year ended 31 March 1988 a total of 33,408 visits were made to such premises, of which 1,865 were investigations of accidents or complaints. It is anticipated that 34,390 visits will be made in the current year of which 30,940 will be inspections.

  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many persons are employed as agricultural inspectors; and on average how many inspections they each make a year.

  Mr. Nicholls
  On 1 July 1988, a total of 148 inspectors were employed in Her Majesty's agricultural inspectorate of the Health and Safety Executive. During 1987–88, the inspectorate made over 39,000 visits to premises. This figure includes planned preventive inspections, follow-up visits, investigations of accidents and dangerous occurrences, meetings with management and safety representatives, and general advisory and educational work; some visits combined more than one of these purposes. Consequently, it would be misleading to refer to an average rate per inspector.

  Factory Inspectorate
  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what is the total number of establishments in the United Kingdom which are eligible for inspection by the factory inspectorate; how many such factory inspections took place in the last year for which figures are available; and how many inspections are expected to be made in the present year.

  Mr. Nicholls
  The information is not available in the form requested. On 31 March 1988 in Great Britain there were 401,923 fixed premises registered with the factory inspectorate.

  Between 1 April 1987 and 31 March 1988, factory inspectors made 69,437 preventive inspection visits to fixed premises and it is anticipated that 70,000 preventive inspections will be made in the present year. It is not possible to identify separately visits to factories.

  Figures for Northern Ireland are a matter for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland.

  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what is the total number of factory 80
  inspectors employed in the United Kingdom; and if he will give an average number of visits each individual factory inspector will make in a year.

  Mr. Nicholls
  On 1 July 1988, a total of 548 inspectors were employed in Her Majesty's factory inspectorate of the Health and Safety Executive. During 1987–88, the inspectorate made over 173,000 visits to premises. This figure includes planned preventive inspections, follow-up visits, investigations of accidents and dangerous occurrences, meetings with management and safety representatives, and general advisory and educational work; some visits combined more than one of these purposes. Consequently, it would be misleading to refer to an average rate per inspector.

  The figures relate to Great Britain. Information for Northern Ireland is the responsibility of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland.

  Tourism
  Mr. David Porter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what assessment his Department has made of the likely impact on the tourist industry in East Anglia afforded by the opening of the Channel tunnel; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Lee
  None. However, the British Tourist Authority's Channel tunnel national tourism working party has produced a report, "The Channel Tunnel—An opportunity and a challenge for British Tourism", a summary of which has been sent to all Members of both Houses of Parliament. This report examines the potential for regions other than the south-east to benefit from the increase in tourists from the continent. A copy of the full report is available from the Library.

  Industrial Accidents
  Mr. Wilson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will list the number of deaths resulting from all industrial accidents in each of the past 10 years.

  Mr. Nicholls
  The available information is as follows:

  Reported occupational injuries in Great Britain, resulting in death to

  Year

  Employees only

  Employees and self employed

  Members of the public arising from work activity

  1977

  524

  —

  —

  11978

  —

  622

  —

  1979

  —

  615

  —

  1980

  —

  579

  —

  21981

  —

  3499

  75

  1982

  —

  517

  84

  1983

  —

  508

  88

  1984

  —

  496

  101

  1985

  —

  3473

  5159

  71986

  —

  108

  24

  61986–87

  —

  410

  91

  Notes:

  1 1978–80 fatalities include some involving non-employees voluntarily reported.

  2 1981–1985 and 1986 (Jan–March) fatalities to employees, the self-employed and the non-employed reported to the Health and Safety Executive or other appropriate enforcing authority under, and as defined in the Notification of Accidents and Dangerous Occurrences Regulations (NADOR).
  81
  3 Figures for 1981 and 1985 have been recently corrected and vary slightly from previously published figures.

  4 Year commencing 1 April 1986 when the Reporting of Injuries, Diseases and Dangerous Occurrences Regulations (RIDDOR) came into force.

  5 Includes the 56 people killed in the Bradford Football Club disaster.

  6 Provisional.

  7 First quarter.

  Oil Industry (North Sea)
  Mr. Meacher
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what action he proposes to take to prevent workers being blacklisted by the oil industry in the North sea; and what evidence is available to him on the extent of this practice.

  Mr. Nicholls
  I have no evidence of such blacklisting and no proposals for action. Employers are free to employ whoever they feel is best suited to the job, provided they do not discriminate unlawfully on grounds of race or sex.

  Opencast Coal Mining (Medical Surveys)
  Mr. Win Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he has received a copy of the medical surveys in Kent linking high levels of serious illness with dust from opencast coal mining; and if he will carry out similar surveys in other areas of England where there is opencast coal mining and other activities generating significant levels of dust.

  Mr. Nicholls
  I am not aware of any authoritative medical surveys on this issue or of proposals for any to be carried out.

  Child Care
  Mrs. Mahon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment from what age, under the training for employment scheme, child care costs for sole parents up to £50 a week are available for children.

  Mr. Lee
  holding answer 22 July 1988]: Help with the costs of necessary child care of up to £50 per week per child is available to lone parents (or guardians) who are eligible to enter employment training. The payments can be made in respect of children of all ages up to 16 where arrangements for their care have been made with a child minder, day nursery or creche registered with the local authority.

  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment, if he will provide a breakdown of annual long-term unemployment rates for the United Kingdom, showing the number out of work for six months and over, in the years 1978 to 1988.

  Mr. Lee
  Direct comparisons of unemployment by duration since 1978 are not possible because of changes in the coverage of the count. Following is the available information which is also in the library. Table(a) shows the percentage of unemployed registrants in the United Kingdom who had been unemployed six months or more for each year from 1979 to 1982. Table (b) shows corresponding figures according to the percentage of unemployed claimants from 1983 to 1987.
  82

  Table (a)

  Percentage of unemployed registrants in the United Kingdom unemployed over six months

  Percentage of total registrants

  1979

  42·2

  1980

  35·1

  1981

  45·1

  1982

  54·6

  Table (b)

  Percentage of unemployed claimants in the United Kingdom unemployed over six months

  Percentage of total claimants

  1983

  56·0

  1984

  58·3

  1985

  59·1

  1986

  59·2

  1987

  60·0

  Note: Figures based on the average for January, April, July and October of each year.

ENERGY

  North Sea Oil and Gas Rigs (Safety)
  Mr. Jessel
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what representations he has received about the safety of North sea oil rigs.

  Mr. Parkinson
  I have received a number of representations about the safety of offshore installations. The Government continue to attach paramount importance to all safety matters.

  Mr. Prescott
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy if he will make a statement on the trend in serious accidents and dangerous occurrences in the offshore oil and gas industry over the last five years; and if he has any plans to seek to improve the safety record of the industry.

  Mr. Parkinson
  The number of serious accidents and dangerous occurrences rose between 1983 and 1986, but fell between 1986 and 1987 to around 1984 levels. The upward trend between 1984 and 1986 partly reflects improved reporting procedures. The safety of offshore workers is of paramount importance and we are determined to continue to find ways to improve the industry's safety record.

  Mr. Rooker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy how many unpublished reports of investigations into explosions and fires on North sea installations his Department holds.

  Mr. Peter Morrison
  The information is not available in the form requested. However, in broad terms the Department carries out over 200 inspections and between 25 and 30 accident investigations annually.

  Mr. Haynes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy if he has called for a safety report on all platforms operating in the British sector of the North sea.

  Mr. Parkinson
  All platforms operating in the British sector of the North sea are subject to regular and systematic safety assessments involving inspection by the appropriate certifying authority, the Department of Transport and my own Department.
  83
  Mr. Knapman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what access offshore oil and gas workers have to(a) trades unions and (b) the safety inspectorate.

  Mr. Peter Morrison
  Offshore oil and gas workers have full access to both trade unions and the safety inspectorate.

  Under a memorandum of understanding between the unions and the United Kingdom Offshore Operators Association there is free access by union officials to offshore installations, where they can talk freely and confidentially to the work force.

  The manager of an offshore installation is also under a duty to ensure that the telephone number of a representative of the safety inspectorate is posted in a conspicuous place on the installation so that people working on rigs can make direct contact with the inspectorate if they feel it necessary to do so.

  Mr. Meacher
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy how many fires have been reported during each month in the current year on each of the North sea oil and gas rigs.

  Mr. Peter Morrison
  In total 16 fires on offshore installations in the United Kingdom continental shelf have been reported to my Department so far this year. The number of fires for each month is as follows:

  1988

  Number

  January

  3

  April

  1

  May

  5

  June

  2

  July

  5

  Mr. Meacher
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy, pursuant to his reply of 14 July,Official Report, column 367, if he will publish such information as is available to him on the number of inspectors employed by certifying authorities on safety inspection work in the North sea in each year since 1965.

  Mr. Peter Morrison
  The certifying authorities estimate that in aggregate 250 man years are currently devoted to the survey of offshore installations. Comparable information for earlier years is not available.

  Mr. Prescott
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy how many full-time and part-time inspectors were employed by his Department in the offshore industry inspectorate; and how many vacancies there were for each year since 1979.

  Mr. Peter Morrison
  The number of full-time inspectors employed and the number of vacancies since 1980 is set out in the table.

  Date

  Complement

  Staff in post

  Vacancies

  1980 (June)

  28

  25

  3

  1981 (July)

  33

  31

  2

  1982 (March)

  35

  32

  3

  1985 (October)

  33

  27

  6

  1987 (March)

  44

  36

  8

  1988 (July)

  46

  37

  9

  No part-time inspectors are employed. Figures are available only for the dates shown.

  The number of staff in post has risen significantly since 1980 but has not fully kept pace with increases in
  84
  complement. However, recruitment initiatives since the beginning of 1988 will substantially reduce the nine vacancies outstanding in the near future. Recruitment efforts will continue.

  Mr. Prescott
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what evidence his Department has about the level of inspection, maintenance and repair work carried out on offshore installations for each year since 1979; and by how much it has increased or reduced over this period.

  Mr. Peter Morrison
  Operators are required under the Offshore Installations (Operational Safety, Health and Welfare) Regulations 1976 (SI 1976/1019) to maintain the safety of installations and their equipment and to establish a scheme providing for their regular examination, maintenance and testing. My inspectors are responsible for checking that the regulations are complied with. Details of the level of maintenance and repair work can be gathered only at disproportionate cost.

  North Sea Oil and Gas
  Mr. Hannam
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy when he next plans to meet the United Kingdom Offshore Operators Association to discuss North sea oil developmemt.

  Mr. Peter Morrison
  My right hon. Friend and I meet the United Kingdom Offshore Operators Association from time to time to discuss matters of mutual interest.

  North Sea Installations
  Mr. Doran
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy for how many oil and gas installations in the United Kingdom sector of the North sea each inspector is responsible.

  Mr. Peter Morrison
  Inspectors are not allocated to particular installations. Each installation is subject to inspection by inspectors of different disciplines to ensure as wide a spread of expertise as possible.

  Mr. Doran
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy if he will list those bodies and agencies which receive copies of the reports of his Department's inspections of oil and gas installations in the United Kingdom sector of the North sea.

  Mr. Peter Morrison
  Copies of my inspector's reports are not sent to outside agencies. Any lessons to be learnt are immediately communicated to the petroleum industry by means of safety notices. An inspector will ensure that any action required is carried out by the companies concerned.

  Mr. Doran
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy (1) to which body the certifying authorities for oil and gas installations in the United Kingdom sector of the North sea report; and what is the status of their reports;

  (2) what powers the certifying authorities have to enforce adequate safety standards; and on what occasions these powers have been used and in respect of which oil and gas installations;

  (3) what criteria his Department applies in its appointment of companies to act as certifying authorities for safety purposes of oil and gas installations in the United Kingdom sector of the North sea;
  85
  (4) to whom copies of the reports of the inspections by certifying authorities of oil and gas installations in the United Kingdom sector of the North sea are made available.

  Mr. Peter Morrison
  There are six approved independent certifying authorities appointed under the Offshore Installations (Construction and Survey) Regulations 1974 (SI. 1974/289). These are:

  Lloyd's Register of Shipping;

  American Bureau of Shipping;

  Bureau Veritas;

  Det Norske Veritas;

  Germanisher Lloyd; and

  Offshore Certification Bureau.

  The first five listed were appointed in 1974 and are internationally respected ship classification societies. The sixth, formerly known as Halcrow, Ewbank Partnership, was appointed in 1976 and comprised a group of internationally respected British consultants. Each certifying authority was appointed only after an in-depth study by specialists in my Department. These studies involved analysis of each authority's management, structure, staff and methodology in applying their experience as ship classification societies to offshore installations.

  Whilst they are required to be independent, the authorities are subjected to continuous reassessment by my Department to ensure that their technical and managerial quality is maintained. These reassessments involve further detailed studies of the methodology applied by the authorities to ensure that they comply with the law; that the most up-to-date standards are being applied in certification procedures and that they are correctly interpreting design and construction guidance notes issued by my Department which document technology relevant to offshore installations which is not readily available already in published form.

  Before issuing a certificate of fitness, the certifying authorities are required to examine plans, drawings, specifications, reports and other documents submitted by the owners of offshore installations. The certifying authorities must also carry out, or ensure that there has already been carried out, an independent assessment of the design and method of construction of each installation. They also carry out an initial major survey of each installation.

  Only when satisfied that it is proper to do so can a certifying authority issue a certificate of fitness. This is valid for up to five years, after which a further major survey must be carried out before a subsequent certificate is issued. Annual surveys of installations are also required.

  Certifying authorities and owners can agree that offshore installations should be subject to continuous assessment instead of subsequent major surveys. Under this procedure annual surveys continue to take place but additionally the installation is continuously surveyed and the need for a separate major survey every fifth year is therefore removed.

  If a certifying authority considers that a particular installation is no longer fit for its intended purpose it is required to notify the owner and me so that I can take appropriate action including if necessary the withdrawal of a certificate of fitness. The certifying authorities may, as part of their powers, impose limitations on the location, operation and movement of offshore installations. They may also decline to issue a certificate of fitness.
  86
  While the certifying authorities are independent and liaise directly with offshore operators, the authorities are, under the terms and conditions of their appointment, required to send me an annual report of their activities together with any report that they have prepared or obtained in carrying out their duties which I may require. Certifying authorities are not required to copy these reports to any other organisations.

  The Certifying authority for Piper Alpha was Lloyd's Register of Shipping.

  Mr. Doran
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy if he will list the occasions when his Department has issued a safety notice to an operator of an oil and gas installation in the United Kingdom sector of the North sea requiring the operator to improve safety standards on an installation; and to which operators and in respect of which installation they were issued.

  Mr. Peter Morrison
  When an inspector of my safety directorate completes an inspection he records in the operator's logbook any matters he requires the owner or offshore installation manager to do or refrain from doing. If necessary, he also leaves a list of points for attention with the offshore installation manager, (which consists of points recorded in the logbook and minor points of detail), and sends a letter to company management at the shore base. Any safety recommendation which could be of general application is notified to all offshore operators. An inspector will ensure that companies perform the action required; time limits are specified by my inspectors when required.

  Piper Alpha Disaster
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy if he will make a statement about the outcome of interviews with relatives of deceased crew members of Piper Alpha about alleged gas leaks reported in the period before the explosion.

  Mr. Peter Morrison
  The technical investigation team has already begun to interview relatives of deceased crew members. The investigation team is anxious to hear from anyone who has any information about events surrounding the explosion.

  Mr. Martlew
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy if he will make a statement regarding progress in the inquiry taking place into the accident that took place on the Piper Alpha oil platform.

  Mr. Peter Morrison
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer given to the hon. and learned Member for Fife, North-East (Mr. Campbell) on 14 July 1988, at columns 365–66. The public inquiry, under the chairmanship of the hon. Lord Cullen, will take place as soon as practicable.

  Mr. Wray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy if he will make a statement on the results of the search for missing bodies of victims of the Piper Alpha disaster in the North sea.

  Mr. Peter Morrison
  Following the accident, Her Majesty's Coastguard conducted an intensive search and rescue operation until nightfall on 8 July. Sixty seven survivors were airlifted to safety. After 8 July Occidental assumed responsibility for search operations and it has informed me that 43 bodies have now been recovered. The
  87
  company is continuing to give the highest priority to recovering the remaining bodies, but the work has been made more difficult by the extent of the damage to the platform and the need not to put further lives at risk.

  Mr. Prescott
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy when his Department received the report of the 1984 explosion on the Piper Alpha installation; what are the reasons for not making the report publicly available; and whether any of its recommendations were made available to employers and employees in the North sea offshore industry.

  Mr. Peter Morrison
  My right hon. Friend has undertaken to give the 1984 report to the public inquiry. When my right hon. Friend met the offshore unions they asked for the report to be made public as early as possible. My right hon. Friend undertook to inform Lord Cullen of the unions' views, and has now done this. It is for Lord Cullen to decide whether or when to make evidence available but my right hon. Friend has indicated to him that he has no objection to the report being made public.

  As is normal in these circumstances the 1984 report was not published. However my inspector was satisfied that following the accident, Occidental took the appropriate action.

  Bradwell Hall Reactor
  Mr. Ray Powell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy if he has received further information on the restart date of Bradwell Hall reactor.

  Mr. Michael Spicer
  The Health and Safety Executive's nuclear installations inspectorate gave consent to the CEGB on 12 July 1988 to start up reactor 1 at Bradwell nuclear power station in Essex. Reactor start up commenced on 14 July. Electricity has been delivered to the grid from 15 July.

  Toronto Conference (Atmosphere Pollution)
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy if his Department sent representatives to the Toronto conference on "The Changing Atmosphere: Implications For Global Security; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Michael Spicer
  As I stated in a written reply to the hon. Member for Devon, North (Mr. Speller) on 20 July, the United Kingdom delegation to the Toronto conference on the changing atmosphere was led by the chief scientist of the Department of the Environment and included a representative from my Department.

  China
  Mr. Baldry
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what discussions he had during his visit to the People's Republic of China with the new Energy Minister and officials of the various corporations concerned with the energy industry about prospects for British industry in China

  Mr. Parkinson
  The Chinese energy sector has just been reorganised. I met the new Energy Minister and the presidents of each of the energy corporations. I was accompanied by a group of senior British industrialists who attended all these meetings. The Chinese expressed 88
  their great satisfaction with the contribution which United Kingdom companies are already making to the development of China's energy resources and they looked forward to expanding co-operation in future.

  Hinkley Point C Inquiry
  Mr. Dunnachie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what information he has sent to the inspector of the Hinkley Point C inquiry regarding the guidelines for the inquiry.

  Mr. Michael Spicer
  The terms in which my right hon. Friend complied with the requirements of the inquiry rules to set out the matters which appeared to him to be relevant to his consideration of the CEGB's application for Hinkley Point C were reported in his answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Wellks (Mr. Heathcoat-Amory) on 21 March 1988, at columns 21–22.

  Electricity Privatisation
  Mr. Butler
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy if he will make a statement on the progress of increased access to the national grid by private generators of electricity 1983.

  Mr. Michael Spicer
  Although the Energy Act 1983 allowed private generators common carrier access to the electricity supply industry's transmisson and distribution system, it has not gone far enough in encouraging competition. After privatisation all generators will have fair and equal access to the transmission and distribution system.

  Mr. Meale
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy if, in the light of the National Consumer Council report about his privatisation plans for the electricity industry, he will make a statement on the likely prices of electricity.

  Mr. Hardy
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what action he proposes to take in relation to prices and consumer protection, following the privatisation of the electricity supply industry.

  Mr. Michael Spicer
  In future, electricity prices and standards of service will reflect the benefits both of competition and of the regulation of any remaining monopolies.

  Mr. Wallace
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy if there are any plans to set up a regulatory body in advance of the privatisation of the electricity supply industry.

  Mr. Michael Spicer
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave earlier today to my hon. Friend the Member for Erewash (Mr. Rost).

  South-Western Supergrid
  Mr. Colvin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy if, when he next meets the chairman of the Central Electricity Generating Board, he will raise with him the extent of the shortfall of electricity supply on the south-western supergrid in the event that no further power stations are commissioned between now and 1995; and if he will make a statement.
  89
  Mr. Parkinson
  I meet the chairman of the Central Electricity Generating Board on a regular basis to discuss a number of subjects. The Central Electricity Generating Board sees a need for new generating capacity in the south-west to ensure the existing security of supply.

  Alternative Energy
  Mr. Thurnham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what recommendations for research into alter-native energy sources he is currently considering; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Michael Spicer
  Energy paper No. 55 "Renewable Energy in the United Kingdom: The Way Forward",90
  which I announced in the House on 20 June, outlines our plans for the renewable energy development programme to the year 2000.

  Brindex
  Mr. Salmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy when he last met the chairman of Brindex; and what issues were discussed.

  Mr. Peter Morrison
  My right hon. Friend met the chairman of Brindex on 17 May. They discussed a range of matters, including the role of independent exploration companies in the exploration and development of the United Kingdom's oil and gas reserves.

  Private Sector Coal Mining
  Mr. Watts
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what recent representations he has received seeking the expansion of private sector coal mining.

  Mr. Parkinson
  The Government have received a number of representations seeking increases in the statutory limits on private sector mining operations, and are giving them careful consideration.

  Nuclear Power Generation
  Mr. Teddy Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what proposals he has received for the building of additional nuclear-powered electricity generating plants; and if he will make a statement on the future of nuclear power generation.

  Mr. Parkinson
  The CEGB has applied for consent to build a PWR at Hinkley Point in Somerset. The public inquiry is expected to start on 4 October. I understand that the CEGB also intends to apply for consent for a PWR at Wylfa, on Anglesey.

  There is a vital strategic need for the significant non-fossil fuel contribution that can be made by nuclear power generation.

  Coal Reserves
  Mr. Livsey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy when his Department last made an estimate of coal reserves in the United Kingdom; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Michael Spicer
  Coal reserves in the United Kingdom are substantial. Responsibility for quantifying reserves in place lies with British Coal.

  Electricity Supplies (Scottish Link)
  Mr. Home Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy how advanced are the plans to strengthen the inter-connector link in Scotland to supply the electricity market elsewhere.

  Mr. Michael Spicer
  The electricity supply industry is considering the scope for strengthening the link. The Government welcome this, since use of the link should facilitate greater competition in the supply of electricity.

  Electricity Supply Industry (Noxious Emissions)
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what steps his Department is currently taking to reduce carbon dioxide and nitrogen oxide emissions by the electricity supply industry; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Parkinson
  Reductions in nitrogen oxides will follow from our agreement to the European Communities large combustion plant directive. No specific steps have been taken, or are planned, to limit emissions of carbon dioxide from power stations. However, the Government's commitment to continued diversity of fuel supply, including a sizeable non fossil fuel component, will help to limit such emissions.
  92
  Mr. Knox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy if he will make a statement about progress towards the completion of the energy market in the European Community in 1992.

  Mr. Parkinson
  My right hon. Friend the Minister of State, Department of Energy, described in his reply of 20 June 1988, at column 411 to the hon. Member for Bolton, West (Mr. Sackville) the inability of the Energy Council to agree conclusions at its meeting on 9 June on the Commission's paper on obstacles to the completion of the internal energy market. Officials of member states are now examining the Commission's inventory of obstacles to verify that it is complete and accurate.

  The Commission intends to submit specific proposals to the Energy Council on transparency of energy prices, during the second half of 1988 and on energy infrastructures before the end of 1989.I understand that it also expects to submit proposals on the electricity market by the end of June next year. It will draw up by the end of next year a further report on developments in this field.

  Bradwell Nuclear Power Station
  Mr. Alan W. Williams
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what procedures the nuclear installations inspectorate have required from the Central Electricity Generating Board for checking the integrity of the welds in the coolant gas circuit and checking for fissures in the pressure vessel at Bradwell nuclear power station.

  Mr. Michael Spicer
  The Health and Safety Executive's nuclear installations inspectorate has required the CEGB to carry out an inspection of welds in the reactor 1 coolant gas circuit. This has been completed satisfactorily and a similar inspection programme for reactor 2 will be undertaken next year. The CEGB is also required to complete a programme of high resolution photography of certain areas of the reactor pressure vessels by the spring of 1989, which will add further confidence to the reactor pressure vessel safety case.

  Fast Reactor Programme
  Mr. Maclennan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy if he will make a statement about future British participation in the European collaborative fast reactor programme.

  Mr. Parkinson
  I refer the hon. Member to the statement I made in the House on 21 July 1988, at column 1288.

  Pressurised Fluidised Bed Combustion Project, Grimethorpe
  Mr. Barron
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what discussions he has had with British Coal on the funding of the second phase of the pressurised fluidised bed combustion project at Grimethorpe.

  Mr. Michael Spicer
  My officials have been kept informed of British Coal's proposals through discussions under the aegis of the International Energy Agency, and within ACORD.

  Coal Industry Dispute
  Mr. Skinner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy if he will obtain from the chairman of British Coal an up-to-date report of the number of miners sacked during the 1984–85 coal strike who have now been reinstated.

  Mr. Michael Spicer
  No. The dismissal and re-employment of mineworkers is a matter for the management of the British Coal Corporation.

  Deep-mined Coal
  Mr. Douglas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy if he will make a statement on the production of deep-mined coal in Scotland and the amount expected to be burned in power stations in Scotland during the remainder of 1988.

  Mr. Michael Spicer
  Output forecasts are a matter for British Coal. The extent of Scottish power station coal burn is a commercial matter for the power station operators to determine.

  Radioactive Waste
  Mr. Speller
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy where when the nuclear-powered generating stations at Berkeley and Bradwell are closed down, the highly radioactive content will be disposed of; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Michael Spicer
  Spent fuel from the reactors will be removed and sent to Sellafield for reprocessing. It is expected that accumulated operational wastes and other active wastes arising from decommissioning will in due course be consigned to the deep disposal facility which Nirex has been asked to investigate.

  Energy Efficiency
  Mr. Patnick
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy whether he will provide further information to help managers and occupiers of commercial and public buildings to improve energy efficiency.

  Mr. Peter Morrison
  My Energy Efficiency Office is producing a series of booklets entitled "Energy Efficiency in Buildings". Each booklet helps managers and occupiers of a given type of building assess the scope for saving money through improved energy efficiency, and suggests an action plan. Booklets are now available on schools, catering establishments, shops, health care buildings, and further and higher education buildings. A further eight titles will be published shortly.

  Petroleum Coke Fuel
  Mr. Bowis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what steps he is taking to alert the public to the dangers of burning petroleum coke fuel; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Michael Spicer
  The Government are considering what steps might be appropriate. I can confirm that all such coke manufactured in the United Kingdom is supplied solely to the metal refining industry.

  Departmental Inspectors
  Mr. Meacher
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy, further to his reply of 14 July,Official Report, column 367, how many inspectors were employed by his Department in each year since 1965.

  Mr. Peter Morrison
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer given to the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott) today.

AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

  Food Standards
  Mr. Shersby
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what information he has concerning the views of the London Food Commission on standards of food production in Britain; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Donald Thompson
  The Government's aim has always been that there should be a plentiful and varied supply of good quality, unadulterated, enjoyable food available to consumers at affordable prices. I do not see any case for a separate department to handle food issues. We already have a Minister for Food who combines those responsibilities with those for agriculture and for fisheries thus uniting the whole food chain from producer to consumer.

  It is an offence under the food Acts to render any food injurious to health. Comprehensive regulations existing under the Acts provide for proper hygiene in the preparation, handling or selling of food. In addition a number of cases of food poisoning arise from, lack of knowledge of appropriate handling procedures in domestic kitchens; the Government and others are in the process of developing publicity campaigns designed to provide advice in this area. Enforcement of food law is vigorously pursued by local authorities; each authority deploys its resources in this field to the extent and in the manner that best suits local circumstances. Ministers are also already required by the Acts to restrict as far as practicable the use in foods of substances of no nutritional value. We are however always prepared to examine ways of improving or simplifying the food laws when circumstances suggest it is necessary.

  The food Acts require that Ministers consult with representatives of interested parties on draft regulations before these are made and laid before Parliament. Where those proposed regulations arise from advice we have received from our independent expert committees, that advice is published and public comment invited on it before any regulations are drafted. The published advice carries references to the key information the experts have considered in assembling the advice and we endeavour to ensure as far as practicable that the data which is the subject of those references is available for consultation by interested members of the public. There is distinct practical advantage in continuing the present practice of the working sessions of these committees being private, with committees free to take advice from whatever sources they consider appropriate.

  The Government currently spend nearly £8 million per annum on research and monitoring of food safety and

  95
  quality. These resources are targeted at problem areas rather than being spread over areas where no difficulties are known to exist.

  We are required under the Agriculture Act 1986 to seek to achieve a reasonable balance between agriculture and conservation and a range of measures have been introduced to encourage farmers to protect and enhance the environment. This is another good reason why it is sensible to link ministerial responsibilities for agriculture and food.

  The harmonisation of food laws in the European Community (as part of the move to the single market by 1992) is to be done on the basis of the protection of public health, the maintenance of food safety, and the provision of adequate consumer information. Thus there will continue to be high standards of control whilst removing barriers to trade and avoiding undue burdens on business. On a world wide basis, the United Kingdom plays a prominent and active role in the development of the Codex Alimentarius (the FAO/WHO World Food standards programme) which is available to developing countries to form the basis of their own food law and consumer protection programmes.

  Dairy Farmers
  Mr. Nicholas Bennett
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will detail the assistance given to dairy farmers since 1 January; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Donald Thompson
  The decision by the European Council in February to extend the operation of quotas until 1992 gives dairy farmers the assurances they need in order to be able to plan for the future. At the same time it was agreed that financial compensation for the suspension of quotas would be continued beyond 1989.

  The Government secured changes in Community regulations to improve the operation of the adjustment to milk quotas to take account of changes in butterfat levels, and clarified the operation of the national rules relating to quota transfers. Changes in the conversion rate for the green pound will also lead to some increase in the support levels for dairy farmers from 1 January 1989.

  ADAS continues to help farmers develop sound production and business strategies in times when output is limited by quotas and the Government are supporting a number of projects at research centres which are of relevance to dairy farmers. Dairy products are among those supported by Food from Britain and my Department is in the final stages of preparing, with the industry, a dairy product programme under EC regulation 355/77.

  Direct support in the dairy sector represented over £90 per cow in 1987–88 and this together with the industry's own skill in adapting to milk production under quotas, has led to a steady rise in average dairy farm incomes over the past three years.

  Green Pound
  Mr. Nicholas Bennett
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what information he has as to the effect on(a) the beef sector, (b) the dairy sector, and (c) the sheep sector of revaluations of the green pound and interest rate changes since December 1987.
  96
  Mr. MacGregor
  No green pound changes have come into effect since December 1987 in the sectors concerned. I regret that information is not available on the level of farmers' borrowings in the particular commodity sectors referred to or, therefore, on the effect of interest rate changes on the beef, dairy and sheep sectors. Much will depend on the level and sources of individual farmers' borrowings.

  Farm Buildings
  Mr. Nicholas Bennett
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what advice and assistance is given to farmers on improving the appearance of their farm and removing unsightly buildings and derelict equipment; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Gummer
  Ministry technical staff will give specialist advice on the conservation aspects of estate management matters generally, including the appearance of farm buildings in the landscape. Grants are also available to eligible farmers for the provision, replacement, improvement or alteration of buildings for agricultural use or as part of a planned diversification into other forms of rural enterprise. Where such works involve the use of vernacular materials, to improve the appearance of the building, any extra costs will be eligible for grant aid.

  Agricultural Development and Advisory Service
  Mr. Nicholas Bennett
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food whether the efficiency scrutiny review of the Agricultural Development and Advisory Service has been completed; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Donald Thompson
  No such review is being undertaken but as explained in the reply of 26 May to the hon. Member for South Shields (Dr. Clark) at column 261 a review of the first year's experience of the Agricultural Development and Advisory Service charging is currently being undertaken by senior officials.

  Scottish Fishermen's Federation
  Mr. Nigel Griffiths
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when he last met representatives of the Scottish Fishermen's Federation; and which subjects were discussed.

  Mr. MacGregor
  I met representatives of the Scottish Fishermen's Federation on 8 July 1988, together with my right hon. Friend the Minister of State, Scottish Office, Lord Sanderson. We discussed a number of issues of importance to the United Kingdom fishing industry including the capacity of the fleet, the licensing system, rates of grant, the western mackerel fishery, North sea cod and mesh sizes.

  European Community Agricultural Commissioner
  Mr. John Marshall
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when he last met the EC Agriculture Commissioner; and what was discussed.

  Mr. MacGregor
  I last met the EC Commissioner for Agriculture at the Agriculture Council on 18 and 19 July. I refer my hon. Friend to the reply I gave my hon. Friend the Member for Beverley (Mr. Cran) on Wednesday 20 July, at columns 633–34.

  Torry Research Station
  Mr. Doran
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when he last visited the Torry research station, Aberdeen; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Gummer
  I refer the hon. Member to my reply to the hon. Member for Paisley, South (Mr. Buchan) on 7 July at column 745.

  Coast Protection
  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what action is being considered by his Department for the coastal protection of Spurn Point; what assessment he has made of the consequences for Humberside and Lincolnshire in the event of the peninsula being swept away; whether he is considering a long-term strategy for the defence of Spurn Point; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Gummer
  The Ministry has agreed to grant aid a study of this area, which is currently under consideration by Holderness borough council (the coastal protection authority for Spurn peninsula). Any assessment of the consequences of a breach, and any long-term strategy, would be dependent upon the outcome of this study.

  White Fish
  Mr. Salmond
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food why he has not published white fish sectoral allocations for individual producer groups for the current year.

  Mr. Gummer
  Each producer organisation has been notified of its sectoral allocation for 1988. On the question of making this information more widely available, I refer the hon. Member to my reply to him of 12 July at column 136.

  Rhizomania
  Mr. Bellingham
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what action has been taken following the recent discovery of rhizomonia virus in soil attached to imported nursery stock.

  Mr. Donald Thompson
  Discussion have taken place between my Department and the plant health authorities in the Netherlands, and agreement has been rached that exports of nursery stock from the Netherlands to the United Kindom should come only from rhizomania-free areas. Measures have also been agreed which will reduce to a minimum the possibility of contamination of the soil in those areas by rhizomania virus originating elsewhere. My Department and the Dutch authorities will remain in close touch with each other. I am grateful to the Government of the Netherlands for the understanding they have shown of Her Majesty's Government's concern over this matter.

  Set-aside
  Mr. Colvin
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many set-aside applications have been received by his Department; and what is the acreage involved.

  Mr. MacGregor
  None as yet. Application forms have only just been made available, and applications are not being accepted until statutory instruments have completed their parliamentary processes.

  Environment
  Mr. Madden
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what discussions he is having with the National Farmers Union about the effect of agriculture on the environment.

  Mr. Gummer
  I and my officials are in regular contact with the National Farmers Union on this subject.

  Afforestation
  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will place in the Library a copy of the operating instructions under which the Forestry Commission will carry out its procedures in respect of new planting in the light of the Environmental Assessment (Afforestation) Regulations; 1988.

  Mr. MacGregor
  The commission will shortly be publishing a leaflet on the procedures to be followed in respect of environmental assessment for afforestation projects. Copies of this leaflet will be placed in the Library of the House as soon as they are available.

  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if, pursuant to his answer of 19 July, he will set out the ways in which the procedures to be adopted for new planting by the Forestry Commission will differ from those laid down in the Environmental Assessment (Afforestation) Regulations 1988 in respect of new planting by the private sector.

  Mr. MacGregor
  The procedures to be followed by the Forestry Commission in respect of its own new planting proposals differ from those set out in the regulations only in respect of those requirements which are clearly inappropriate. For example, the commission would not seek a direction from Ministers against its own decision to carry out an environmental assessment in any case.

  Farmers (Planning Permission)
  Mr. Ken Hargreaves
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what guidance he intends to give to farmers who experience difficulties in obtaining planning permission.

  Mr. MacGregor
  I am aware of concern in the farming community about the difficulties of getting planning permission, especially now that we are encouraging more diversification on farms.

  The Government have already made it clear that planning authorities should adjust their policies to the changes in the orientation of agriculture which are taking place as a result of reform of the common agricultural policy. However, farmers must also play their part by developing a proper understanding of the planning system and presenting their planning applications clearly and convincingly.

  To help farmers to develop their expertise. I have decided with my right hon. Friends the Secretary of State for the Environment and the Secretary of State for Wales to produce a farmers' guide to the planning system. This will encourage farmers:

  — to present their applications and plans effectively and with due regard for the character of their area;

  — to think about the impact of any development on others and to try and anticipate the planning

  99
  authority's concerns,

  — to emphasise the benefits, such as the number of jobs created; and

  — to discuss their ideas with planning officers, local councillors and their neighbours at an early stage and be ready to show some flexibility.

  I hope the guide will be available before the end of the year.

  Statistical Divisions
  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will list for 1979, 1984 and the most recent year the numbers of staff by grade in the statistical divisions in his Department; and if he will differentiate between staff in the statistical posts and staff in administrative posts.

  Mr. Donald Thompson
  [holding answer 21 July 1988]: The information requested is as follows:

  1 April 1979

  1 April 1984

  1 April 1988

  Chief statistician

  2

  2

  2

  Statistician

  8

  8

  10

  Senior assistant statistician

  6

  2

  6

  Assistant statistician

  2

  2

  3

  Support staff

  198½

  131

  114½

  These figures are prepared on a different basis from those in a White Paper "Government Statistical Services" Cmnd. 8236 of 1981 which covered staff outside statistics divisions engaged in statistical work.

NATIONAL FINANCE

  Civil Servants (Dismissals)
  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many civil servants have been dismissed over the past five years.

  Mr. Brooke
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Langbaurgh (Mr. Holt) on 13 July 1988, at column 200.

  Civil Servants (Dispersal)
  Mr. Holt
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what are the percentages of civil servants working outside London in the Departments of(a) Education, (b) Health and Social Security, (c) Defence, (d) Home Affairs, (e) Transport and (f) others; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Brooke
  The percentages of civil servants working outside London are:

  Department

  1Percentage

  Education and Science

  43

  Health and Social Security

  83

  Defence

  87

  100

  Department

  1 Percentage

  Home Office

  74

  Transport

  85

  Others

  74

  1 The figures quoted are estimates relating to April 1988, based on returns made by Departments to the Treasury.

  National Income
  Mr. Frank Field
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will update the answer given to the hon. Member for Birkenhead detailing the share of national income going to different income groups of 4 November 1986,Official Report, columns 412–14.

  Mr. Norman Lamont
  Information for 1985–86, derived from the survey of personal incomes for that year, is as follows:

  Quantile group of tax units12

  Income before tax

  Income after tax

  £ billion

  per cent.1

  £ billion

  per cent.1

  Top 1 per cent.

  12·7

  6·1

  7·9

  4·7

  Top 2 per cent.

  20·4

  9·8

  13·3

  7·9

  Top 3 per cent.

  25·6

  12·3

  17·3

  10·3

  Top 4 per cent.

  30·8

  14·8

  21·3

  12·6

  Top 5 per cent.

  36·0

  17·3

  25·2

  15·0

  1 As in the previous answer, quantile groups of tax units and percentage shares of income are determined by reference to the population of tax units for which the Inland Revenue has records.

  2 Single people and married couples.

  Income Tax
  Mr. Frank Field
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will list the number and proportion of income tax payers in each of the following tax categories, the number and proportion claiming mortgage tax relief, the average value of relief per mortgagee, the total cost of the relief and the percentage of the total cost for each group(a) up to £5,000 per year; (b) £5,000 to £7,500 per year; (c) £7,500 to £10,000 per year; (d) £10,000 to £12,500 per year; (e) £12,500 to £15,000 per year; (f) £15,000 to £17,500 per year; (g) £17,500 to £20,000 per year; (h) £20,000 to £25,000 per year; (i) £25,000 to £30,000 per year; (j) £30,000 to £40,000 per year; (k) £40,000 to £50,000 per year and (l) over £50,000 per year.

  Mr. Norman Lamont
  Provisional estimates for 1988–89, based on projections of the 1985–86 survey of personal incomes and the 1985 family expenditure survey, are given in the table. The estimate of the cost of mortgage interest relief is based on the general level of mortgage interest rates in July 1988.
  101

  Number of tax units paying tax and number receiving mortgage interest relief by range of total income 1988–89

  Range of total income

  Number of tax units1 paying tax (thousands)

  Percentage

  Number of tax units1 with mortgage relief2 (thousands)

  Percentage

  Average value of relief per mortgagor (£)

  Cost of relief (£ million)

  Percentage

  Up to £5,000

  2,550

  12 per cent.

  690

  8

  300

  210

  5

  £5,001 to £7,500

  3,690

  18

  470

  5

  360

  170

  4

  £7,501 to £10,000

  3,320

  16

  830

  10

  400

  330

  8

  £10,001 to £12,500

  2,890

  14

  1,210

  14

  450

  550

  13

  £12,501 to £15,000

  2,280

  11

  1,230

  14

  480

  590

  14

  £15,001 to £17,500

  1,620

  8

  1,020

  12

  490

  510

  12

  £17,501 to £20,000

  1,260

  6

  870

  10

  490

  430

  10

  £20,001 to £25,000

  1,590

  7

  1,110

  13

  510

  570

  13

  £25,001 to £30,000

  690

  3

  470

  6

  630

  300

  7

  £30,001 to £40,000

  600

  3

  440

  5

  780

  340

  8

  £40,001 to £50,000

  180

  1

  120

  1

  900

  110

  3

  Over £50,000

  230

  1

  140

  2

  1,020

  140

  3

  Total

  20,900

  100

  8,600

  100

  490

  4,250

  100

  1 Single persons and married couples

  2 Including about ½ million non-taxpaying tax units

  Mr. Mullin
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will list the rates of income tax for each year from 1979.

  Mr. Norman Lamont
  (holding answer 21 July 1988]: The information is in the following table:

  Rates of Income Tax 1978–79 to 1988–89

  Period

  Per cent.

  Reduced rate

  1978–79 to 1979–80

  25

  Basic rate

  1978–79

  33

  1979–80 to 1985–86

  30

  1986–87

  29

  1987–88

  27

  1988–89

  25

  Higher rate

  1978–79

  40, 45, 50, 55, 60, 65, 70, 75, 83

  1979–80 to 1987–88

  40, 45, 50, 55, 60

  1988–89

  40

  Investment income surcharge

  1978–79

  10, 15

  1979–80 to 1983–84

  15

  Mortgage Fraud
  Mr. Heddle
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what steps the Inland Revenue takes to identify the incidence of mortgage fraud through the operation of mortgage interest relief at source—MIRAS.

  Mr. Norman Lamont
  The Inland Revenue carries out regular checks on borrowers' mortgage interest relief, and on the lenders to ensure that they are operating the MIRAS arrangements correctly. These compliance procedures are kept under regular review.

  Ethnic Monitoring
  Mr. Janner
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will now carry out a monitoring exercise in accordance with the code of the Commission for Racial Equality, to ascertain how many and what percentage of people from ethnic minorities are employed in each grade in the Treasury; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Brooke
  I refer the hon. and learned Member to the reply I gave him on 29 June, at columns 255–58.

  Mr. Janner
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) what are the results of the ethnic monitoring of recruitment for the AO and AA grades in London; and whether he will place a copy of such results in the Library;

  (2) if he will identify those results of the ethnic monitoring of recruitment for the AO and AA grades in London in July 1987 which suggest that the number of appointments offered to ethnic minorities is broadly in proportion to the number of eligible candidates applying from each ethnic group;

  (3) how many appointments were offered to members of ethnic minorities as revealed by the survey of ethnic monitoring of recruitment for the AO and AA grades in London in July 1987; and how many such offers were accepted;

  (4) how many eligible candidates from each ethnic group applied for recruitment into the AO and AA grades in London in July 1987, according to the ethnic monitoring exercise then carried out by his Department.

  Mr. Brooke
  The information sought is given in the table. It covers a six-month period beginning 1 July 1987.
  103

  AOs

  AAs

  White

  Black

  Asian

  White

  Black

  Asian

  Total number of eligible applicants

  47

  14

  17

  107

  42

  43

  Number offered appointment

  6

  2

  2

  27

  9

  9

  Number appointed

  6

  2

  —

  13

  6

  3

  Mr. Janner
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer in what quasi-governmental bodies or other organisations under his aegis he has authority to request or require the carrying out of ethnic monitoring exercises in accordance with the code of the Commission for Racial Equality; and what ethnic monitoring and equal opportunities exercises have been carried out by each such Department.

  Mr. Brooke
  Non-departmental public bodies and other bodies sponsored by the Chancellor's departments are responsible for making their own arrangements for the recruitment and personnel management of the staff they employ. Bodies are encouraged to be equal opportunities employers, and to pursue practices in the codes of the Commission for Racial Equality and the Equal Opportunities Commission. No central records are held on ethnic monitoring and equal opportunities exercises carried out by these bodies.

  Gross Domestic Product
  Mr. Alan Williams
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is his estimate of the gross domestic product per head in(a) the United Kingdom, (b) England, (c) Wales and (d) Scotland.

  Mr. Major
  I refer the hon. Member to the November 1987 issue of Economic Trends. The table on page 86 shows the latest estimates of regional gross domestic product per head in current prices and at factor costs. The provisional estimates for 1986 are (a) United Kingdom excluding the continental shelf region, £5,597; (b) England, £5,741; (c) Wales, £4,795; (d) Scotland, £5,234. Revised estimates for 1977–86 and provisional estimates for 1987 will be published in the November 1988 issue of Economic Trends.

  Exchange Rates
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will give the monthly figures for(a) United Kingdom interest rates and (b) the exchange rate for (i) sterling/deutschmark and (ii) sterling/ecu, together with the variation from the exchange rate mechanism of the European monetary system central rate of the pound sterling for each month over the last two years.

  Mr. Lilley
  I refer the hon. Member to tables 13.1 and 13.11 of "Financial Statistics" published monthly by the Central Statistical Office and the United Kingdom table of "International Financial Statistics" published monthly by the International Monetary Fund.

  Overseas Debt
  Mr. Tom Clarke
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will publish a table in the Official Report showing for each developing country, for the latest year for which figures are available, the proportion of export earnings constituted by debt service charges.
  104
  Mr. Lilley
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave him on 7 June, at column 527. Similar information for 1987 is not yet available.

  Income Bonds
  Mr. Gale
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer when he expects to increase the interest rates paid on income bonds in line with interest rates in the private sector.

  Mr. Lilley
  The rate of interest on income bonds, like all national savings rates, is kept under review in the light of the Government's borrowing needs, as well as the trend in interest rates in the economy generally.

  Industrial Dredging
  Mr. David Porter
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if, pursuant to his answer of 19 July, he will take steps to make available copies of the licences and guidelines issued to each industrial dredging operation by the Crown Estates Commission.

  Mr. Lawson
  The Crown Estate Commissioners regard dredging licences as commercial documents and as such confidential. I regret therefore that this information cannot be made available.

  Taxation
  Mr. Mullin
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will state the total receipts from(a) value added tax, and (b) tax raised in Sunderland for each years from 1979 to 1988.

  Mr. Norman Lamont
  [holding answer 21 July 1988]: The information is not available.

  Privatisation
  Mr. Gordon Brown
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will publish in the Official Report a table in cash terms showing for each of the years 1979–80 to 1988–89 for each of the organisations which has been included in at least one year in the equivalent of table 4.1 of Cm. 288, those asset sales not included in Table 1.4's line for privatisation proceeds together with appropriate totals; whether these proceeds have directly accrued to the Exchequer or have remained in the relevant businesses; and, where these have been set, if he will publish the target proceeds from such asset sales which have been set in the appropriate investment and financing review.

  Mr. Norman Lamont
  [holding answer 18 July 1988]: Actual or forecast receipts from asset sales included in the nationalised industries' internal resources figures shown in table 4.5 of Cm. 288 for 1979–80 to 1988–89 are shown in the table. The total amount in the 1988–89 plans is £303 million.

  Proceeds from the sale of assets are a source of internally generated funds for nationalised industries and

  105
  do not directly accrue to the Exchequer although they do reduce the industries' need for external finance. Expected asset sale receipts are always taken into account when

  1979–80 £ million

  1980–81 £ million

  1981–82 £ million

  1982–83 £ million

  1983–84 £ million

  1984–85 £ million

  1985–86 £ million

  1986–87 £ million

  1987–88 £ million

  1988–89 £ million

  British Coal

  28

  21

  24

  22

  24

  22

  28

  64

  61

  45

  Electricity (England and Wales)

  16

  10

  17

  21

  23

  27

  30

  23

  40

  —

  North of Scotland and Hydro-Electric Board

  —

  —

  1

  1

  1

  5

  1

  1

  3

  —

  South of Scotland Electricity Board

  —

  1

  1

  1

  1

  2

  1

  2

  3

  —

  British Gas Corporation

  8

  7

  7

  7

  13

  95

  24

  20

  —

  —

  British Steel Corporation

  21

  59

  66

  68

  19

  98

  24

  29

  65

  —

  British Telecom

  77

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Post Office (Posts Businesses)

  19

  9

  7

  3

  6

  7

  62

  21

  24

  27

  Girobank

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  2

  —

  —

  —

  British Airways Board

  11

  15

  15

  77

  11

  31

  23

  4

  —

  —

  British Airports Authority

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  —

  1

  2

  —

  —

  British Railways Board

  31

  48

  34

  99

  99

  160

  85

  95

  187

  213

  British Transport Docks Board

  1

  1

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  British Waterways Board

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  2

  2

  1

  6

  4

  National Freight Company Ltd.

  10

  17

  18

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  National Bus Company

  4

  11

  6

  6

  7

  8

  11

  13

  46

  —

  Scottish Transport Group

  1

  1

  —

  —

  1

  1

  1

  1

  2

  2

  British National Oil Corporation

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  British Aerospace

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  British Shipbuilders

  3

  2

  2

  2

  13

  5

  3

  4

  3

  —

  Civil Aviation Authority

  —

  —

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  2

  1

  Water (England and Wales)

  10

  13

  16

  11

  13

  21

  25

  27

  26

  —

  Enterprise Oil

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  London Regional Transport

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  16

  24

  73

  50

  Notes:

  (1) Figures individually rounded to nearest £1 million. 1987–88 figures are provisional.

  (2) Where industries have been privatised, the figures given relate to the period up to privatisation.

  (3) 1988–89 figures relate to industries' present estimates; due to impending privatisation figures are not shown separately for Electricity (E & W), the Scottish Electricity Boards, British Steel Corporation, Girobank and Water (E & W).

  Mr. Gordon Brown
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will list in the Official Report those nationalised industries and public corporations with entries appearing in table 4.1 of Cm. 288 for which privatisation proposals have been announced, citing appropriate references to ministerial statements and placing copies in the Library.

  Mr. Norman Lamont
  [holding answer 18 July 1988]: The following is a list of those nationalised industries and public corporations with entries appearing in table 4.1 of Cm. 288 for which privatisation proposals have been announced, citing appropriate references to ministerial statements.

  British Steel Corporation 3 December 1987. (OR, col. 1107).

  Electricity (England and Wales) 25 February 1988 (OR, col. 454).

  Girobank 7 June 1988 (OR, col. 713).

  North of Scotland Hydro-Electric Board and South of Scotland Electricity Board. 2 March 1988 (OR, col. 975).

  Scottish Transport Group 27 January 1988 (OR, col. 311).

  Water (England and Wales) 5 February 1986 (OR, col. 287).

  Crown Agents 23 February 1984 (OR, col. 991).

  Crown Suppliers 3 February 1988 (OR, col. 983).

  106
  setting an industry's external financing limits in the investment and financing review, but formal disposal targets are not set.

  General Practice Finance Corporation November 1987 announced in White Paper Cm. 249 (1987)

  The Government have also commissioned a feasibility study into privatising British Technology Group 13 April 1988 (OR, col. 163).

  The Government have also announced privatisation proposals for the following subsidiaries of nationalised industries and public corporations.

  British Rail: BREL 24 November 1987 (OR, col. 141).

  British Shipbuilders: Govan yard and other facilities 18 April 1988 (OR, col. 554).

  Political Parties
  Mr. Gordon Brown
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer which of the political parties are currently treated by the Inland Revenue as qualifying political parties for the purposes of section 24 of the Inheritance Tax Act 1984.

  Mr. Norman Lamont
  [pursuant to his reply, 21 April 1988]: For the purposes of clarification I should add that the Liberal party and the Social Democratic party, before

  107
  and after the establishment of the Social and Liberal Democratic party, also currently qualify for the purposes of section 24 of the Inheritance Tax Act 1984.

SCOTLAND

  NHS Medical Staff (Pay)
  Mr. Galbraith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will give, for each health board, their additional allocation to fund the nurses' pay award.

  Mr. Andrew Welsh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland pursuant to his reply to the hon. Member for Tayside, North (Mr. Walker) of 5 July,Official Report, column 522, how much money each health board is being allocated specifically to meet the full cost of the pay awards to doctors, nurses and other professional staff.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  The sum of £92 million is being made available in Scotland to finance the full additional costs of all review body pay awards, including those to nurses. £6 million is required to meet costs in the family practitioner service and a total of £2·567 million has been allocated to the common services agency, state hospital and the National Board for Nursing, Midwifery and Health Visiting for Scotland. £83·433 million has been added to the hospital and community health service allocations of health boards as follows:

  Health board

  £ thousands

  Argyll and Clyde

  5,981

  Ayrshire and Arran

  4,500

  Borders

  1,309

  Dumfries and Galloway

  2,159

  Fife

  4,206

  Forth Valley

  3,942

  Grampian

  7,700

  Greater Glasgow

  21,595

  Highland

  3,148

  Lanarkshire

  6,924

  Lothian

  13,340

  Orkney

  237

  Shetland

  291

  Tayside

  7,668

  Western Isles

  433

  Total

  83,433

  Surplus NHS Property
  Mr. Allan Stewart
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he has any plans to change the current arrangements governing the sale of surplus National Health Service property; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  The Scottish Home and Health Department is in the course of reviewing the present procedures for the sale of surplus health service property in Scotland. The intention is to streamline the current procedures, which date largely from 1984, building upon our experience since then and upon the increased expertise of health boards, while ensuring that the disposal of surplus property continues to be made on the most favourable terms available.

  Mr. Allan Stewart
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what representations he has recently received from the general managers of the Scottish health boards 108
  concerning the financial arrangements for the proceeds of sales of surplus National Health Service properties; and what response he has made.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  The present arrangements envisage that the full amount of the proceeds is ploughed back into health service capital investment. As a result of representations from health board general managers and others, I am reviewing the limit on the amount of the proceeds of a single sale which may at present be retained by the particular health board responsible for the property. A health board selling property which realises more than the normal limit of £250,000 (which was set in April 1986) may, at the discretion of the Scottish Home and Health Department, retain a greater sum, as an alternative to its distribution to health boards more generally, in the light of their capital expenditure plans.

  Child Care
  Ms. Richardson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what action he is taking to implement the recommendations within his area of responsibility of the European Commission's childcare network report "Caring for Children—Services and Policies for Childcare and Equal Opportunities in the United Kingdom".

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  My right hon. and learned Friend received a copy of this detailed and wide-ranging report only recently. We are considering the report's recommendations with the other Government Departments concerned.

  Penal Establishments
  Mr. Tom Clarke
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland when he last met the governor of each Scottish penal establishment; and what matters were discussed in each case.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  My right hon. and learned Friend last met the governors in charge of all Scottish penal establishments on 25 January 1988. He delivered an address setting out his policies on penal issues and the future of the Scottish Prison Service. This formed the basis for subsequent questions and discussion.

  Immigration
  Mr. Tom Clarke
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will publish a table in the Official Report, showing for each Scottish penal establishment, the number of prisoners held under immigration legislation together with their average length of stay at the latest date for which figures are available.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The number of prisoners held in Scottish penal establishments under immigration legislation on 5 July 1988 is given in the table.

  Prison

  Number of prisoners

  Barlinnie

  4

  Edinburgh

  1

  Perth

  1

  Inverness

  1

  Total

  7

  109
  Five of the above prisoners are no longer detained. They were held on average for 37·2 days. The other two prisoners have been held since 25 and 27 June 1988 respectively.

  Disabled People (Legislation)
  Mr. Tom Clarke
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland when he last met with representatives of COSLA to discuss the implementation of the Disabled Persons (Services, Consultation and Representation) Act 1986.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  My officials have had two meetings with representatives of the convention to discuss the implications of sections of the Act which have already been implemented: the second was on 31 August 1987 and was concerned with section 13 which was brought into operation on 1 February 1988.

  Prisons (Special Provisions)
  Mr. Tom Clarke
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what arrangements are in force in Scottish prisons to provide(a) special diets, (b) religious worship facilities, (c) appropriate cultural facilities and (d) interpreter services, for ethnic minority prisoners or prisoners with special religious needs.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  An inmate's right to a wholesome and varied diet, and to adequate arrangements for religious observation, is protected by the Prison (Scotland) Rules 1952, which also encourage the provision

  Home help provision in Scotland number of home helps1 per 1.000 total population

  As at the first Monday in October

  Borders

  Central

  Dumfries and Galloway

  Fife

  Grampian

  Highland

  Lothian

  Strathclyde

  Tayside

  Orkney

  Shetland

  Western Isles

  Scotland

  1979

  1·19

  1·70

  2·20

  1·68

  1·17

  1·01

  2·28

  2·07

  1·30

  3·27

  1·81

  4·6.1

  1·88

  1980

  1·10

  1·65

  2·19

  1·49

  1·18

  1·09

  2·37

  1·93

  1·52

  3·10

  1·81

  4·47

  1·83

  1981

  1·10

  1·56

  2·23

  1·48

  1·15

  1·20

  1·88

  1·92

  1·38

  3·34

  1·94

  4·25

  1·74

  1982

  1·10

  1·55

  2·24

  1·78

  1·19

  1·30

  2·20

  1·95

  1·38

  3·18

  2·11

  4·50

  1·82

  1983

  1·10

  1·60

  2·00

  1·79

  1·33

  1·52

  2·02

  1·96

  1·46

  3·43

  2·17

  5·23

  1·83

  1984

  1·10

  1·62

  2·39

  2·00

  1·45

  1·59

  1·97

  1·96

  1·59

  3·26

  2·23

  4·90

  1·87

  1985

  1·06

  1·66

  2·01

  1·96

  1·47

  1·58

  1·99

  2·09

  1·60

  3·62

  2·05

  5·14

  1·93

  1986

  1·08

  1·70

  1·83

  2·59

  1·43

  1·26

  2·01

  2·17

  1·61

  3·53

  1·95

  5·11

  1·99

  1987

  1·09

  1·74

  1·66

  2·38

  1·52

  1·20

  2·19

  2·19

  1·62

  3·31

  2·27

  5·02

  2·02

  1 Expressed in Whole-time Equivalents

  Buses
  Mr. Darling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list the number of(a) prosecutions and (b) convictions of bus operators in respect of offences arising from, or in connection with, operation of buses in each year since 1980.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  Comprehensive in-formation is not available centrally. The following information is given in the annual report of the traffic commissioner on summonses and convictions since 1980:

  Summonses

  Convictions

  1980–81

  395

  67

  1981–82

  127

  52

  1982–83

  121

  110

  1983–84

  201

  103

  1984–85

  358

  57

  1985–86

  103

  75

  1986–87

  43

  59

  110
  of appropriate education and social facilities. Locally, governors will, where practicable, make every effort to meet reasonable requests from ethnic minority inmates for special facilities including translation.

  I have recently asked Her Majesty's chief inspector of Prisons whether there are any general improvements which ought to be made to the arrangements for accommodating the small number of inmates from ethnic minorities.

  Muthill Old Church
  Sir Nicholas Fairbairn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland when work by the Scottish Development Department on the fabric of Muthill old church was begun; when it will end; and what is the estimated cost.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  Repair work on the towerof Muthill old church began in August 1985, but due to unexpected structural problems will not be completed until March 1989. The total cost is expected to be £42,500.

  Home Helps
  Mr. Tom Clarke
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland, pursuant to the answer to the hon. Member for Monklands, West from the Secretary of State for Social Services on 13 May,Official Report, columns 273–74, if he will supply similar information on the level of home help provision in Scotland by local authority area.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  The information requested is as follows:

  Stagecoach Limited
  Mr. Darling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list the number of convictions of Stagecoach Limited of Perth arising from and in connection with their operation of buses, indicating the nature of the conviction in each case.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  Details about in-dividual companies are not available centrally and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Manufacturing Industry
  Mr. Salmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what is his estimate, by employee, of the proportion of Scottish manufacturing industry controlled(a) by overseas headquartered companies and (b) by companies headquartered outside Scotland.

  Mr. Lang
  The proportion of Scottish manufacturing industry controlled by overseas-owned companies in 1987 is estimated to be 18 per cent. (by employment).
  111
  Comparable information on the proportion of Scottish manufacturing industry controlled by companies with headquarters outside Scotland, is not available.

  Regional Aid
  Mr. Salmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will publish a table showing expenditure on

  Expenditure on regional preferential assistance to industry in Scotland Fiscal year (at constant 1987–88 prices)

  £ million

  1976–77

  1977–78

  1978–79

  1979–80

  1980–81

  1981–82

  1982–83

  1983–84

  1984–85

  1985–86

  1986–87

  1987–88

  Local Employment Act Grants

  1·8

  0·2

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Scottish Development Agency Act

  Land and factory building

  24·6

  42·3

  57·1

  66·4

  70·1

  78·7

  58·4

  52·4

  26·8

  25·8

  21·2

  20·1

  Loans to small tourist enterprises

  —

  —

  0·2

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Industrial Development

  Regional Selective Assistance

  30·7

  43·2

  30·5

  31·3

  33·0

  26·4

  25·3

  29·6

  36·5

  52·2

  37·2

  37·6

  Regional Development Grants

  280·0

  238·6

  220·2

  123·3

  167·8

  192·3

  361·5

  171·8

  125·7

  116·7

  178·8

  78·0

  Highlands and Islands Development Board Grants

  6·5

  7·0

  8·4

  8·1

  9·5

  9·4

  10·9

  14·3

  13·8

  13·8

  14·3

  11·8

  Land and factory building

  n/a

  1·8

  4·1

  6·8

  7·3

  6·5

  8·7

  6·5

  12·5

  5·3

  3·2

  4·6

  Other Assistance

  Investment Grants

  1·6

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Tourism (Development of Tourism Act 1969 Section 4)

  1·8

  2·3

  2·7

  2·8

  2·8

  2·7

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Regional Employment Premium

  203·9

  3·4

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Small Firms Employment Subsidy

  —

  1·6

  3·1

  13·0

  3·0

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Total gross expenditure

  550·9

  340·4

  326·3

  251·7

  293·4

  316·1

  464·8

  274·7

  215·3

  213·9

  254·6

  152·1

  Notes:

  1. From 1982–83, expenditure outside Assisted Areas, on land and factory building under the Scottish Development Agency Act has been excluded. The 1987–88 figure for land and factory building is provisional.

  2. RSA is provided under the Industrial Development Act 1982 and its predecessors.

  3. HIDB loans and equity are classed as non-preferential as these are deemed to be similar to non-preferential assistance outside the HIDB area.

  4. HIDB expenditure on land and factory building prior to 1977–78 is not separately identifiable.

  5. Assistance under the Development of Tourism Act 1969, section 4 was extended to non-assisted areas in August 1982 and is therefore no longer regarded as part of RPA.

  6. Small Firms Employment Subsidy was ended in March 1980. The 1979–80 total for Small Firms Employment Subsidy excludes estimated non-regionally preferential payments.

  7. Totals may not equal the sum of constituent parts due to rounding.

  Trunk Roads
  Mr. Home Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement on the progress of his Department's review of trunk roads south of Edinburgh.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The consulting engineers undertaking this study are continuing to gather information on traffic and routes to enable them to carry out an evaluation of route options, and are on target to complete their report by 31 December 1988.

  Cases disposed of and custodial sentences given in each Sheriff court, 1983–1987

  1983

  1984

  1985

  1986

  1987

  Sheriff court

  Called to trial

  Custodial sentence

  Called to trial

  Custodial sentence

  Called to trial

  Custodial sentence

  Called to trial

  Custodial sentence

  Called to trial

  Custodial sentence

  Aberdeen

  8,247

  745

  6,226

  619

  5,590

  575

  5,473

  500

  4,679

  468

  Airdrie

  3,821

  387

  2,802

  465

  2,981

  453

  3,502

  474

  3,040

  478

  Alloa

  1,251

  169

  820

  151

  1,083

  126

  1,001

  156

  1,106

  102

  Arbroath

  1,709

  82

  1,189

  83

  1,132

  102

  1,114

  65

  1,120

  84

  Ayr

  3,433

  475

  3,231

  408

  3,354

  362

  3,559

  326

  3,368

  372

  112
  regional preferential assistance to industry in Scotland for each year from 1976–77 to 1987–88, at constant 1987–88 prices.

  Mr. Lang
  Gross expenditure on regional preferential assistance in Scotland for each year since 1976–77 at constant 1987–88 prices is given in the table.

  Sheriff Courts
  Mr. Wilson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list(a) the number of cases disposed of and (b) the number of custodial sentences imposed, by each sheriff court in Scotland, for each of the past five years.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The information requested is given in the table.
  113

  1983

  1984

  1985

  1986

  1987

  Sheriff court

  Called to trial

  Custodial sentence

  Called to trial

  Custodial sentence

  Called to trial

  Custodial sentence

  Called to trial

  Custodial sentence

  Called to trial

  Custodial sentence

  Banff

  739

  67

  503

  27

  367

  39

  434

  30

  413

  32

  Campbeltown

  482

  26

  496

  37

  493

  44

  512

  64

  478

  40

  Cupar

  1,101

  56

  994

  54

  972

  55

  918

  68

  951

  34

  Dingwall

  941

  27

  611

  22

  552

  36

  650

  37

  654

  40

  Dornoch

  391

  12

  359

  15

  291

  14

  277

  8

  207

  3

  Dumbarton

  4,123

  421

  3,424

  489

  3,495

  501

  3,204

  436

  2,582

  296

  Dumfries

  5,980

  177

  5,038

  218

  5,103

  162

  5,734

  250

  4,765

  232

  Dundee

  6,088

  596

  4,731

  684

  4,786

  727

  4,951

  694

  5,457

  642

  Dunfermline

  3,884

  296

  2,529

  231

  2,979

  344

  2,901

  265

  2,821

  296

  Dunoon

  993

  39

  854

  42

  923

  85

  912

  72

  811

  34

  Duns

  518

  15

  190

  7

  228

  9

  167

  7

  183

  0

  Edinburgh

  21,361

  678

  13,317

  906

  11,985

  1,039

  11,892

  1,081

  11,924

  898

  Elgin

  1,772

  162

  1,141

  103

  1,179

  134

  1,246

  109

  1,266

  104

  Falkirk

  4,461

  285

  2,683

  241

  2,779

  213

  3,192

  303

  2,863

  346

  Forfar

  1,496

  64

  1,010

  64

  1,091

  68

  1,004

  40

  986

  48

  Fort William

  435

  40

  467

  42

  469

  45

  445

  27

  513

  48

  Glasgow

  16,552

  2,360

  16,073

  2,760

  16,219

  2,978

  11,309

  2,307

  10,491

  1,997

  Greenock

  2,974

  355

  2,147

  394

  2,141

  418

  2,149

  488

  1,993

  535

  Haddington

  1,555

  84

  1,279

  103

  1,133

  108

  1,291

  83

  957

  63

  Hamilton

  7,602

  695

  5,577

  648

  6,044

  756

  5,739

  821

  5,634

  611

  Inverness

  2,407

  95

  2,143

  119

  2,157

  146

  1,978

  131

  1,921

  119

  Jedburgh

  717

  45

  459

  54

  486

  85

  419

  59

  551

  39

  Kilmarnock

  6,746

  956

  5,265

  955

  5,182

  1,216

  5,458

  1,283

  4,964

  1,049

  Kirkcaldy

  3,984

  301

  3,351

  238

  3,186

  256

  3,182

  341

  3,813

  295

  Kirkcudbright

  336

  12

  254

  13

  342

  20

  360

  30

  397

  26

  Kirkwall

  414

  9

  475

  9

  541

  15

  582

  9

  562

  9

  Lanark

  1,401

  72

  869

  65

  1,015

  113

  991

  121

  1,035

  116

  Lerwick

  581

  11

  468

  11

  500

  20

  438

  7

  596

  8

  Linlithgow

  4,532

  314

  2,564

  288

  2,771

  365

  3,024

  227

  3,195

  224

  Lochmaddy

  163

  1

  158

  0

  130

  4

  222

  5

  156

  4

  Oban

  408

  50

  353

  27

  344

  46

  336

  32

  370

  47

  Paisley

  6,026

  613

  5,016

  519

  5,996

  508

  6,040

  573

  5,573

  606

  Peebles

  506

  4

  386

  37

  357

  14

  372

  14

  174

  13

  Perth

  5,469

  200

  3,208

  227

  3,622

  282

  3,422

  267

  3,449

  256

  Peterhead

  806

  91

  708

  97

  887

  94

  691

  61

  699

  64

  Portree

  104

  5

  151

  2

  180

  8

  193

  2

  155

  11

  Rothesay

  246

  30

  294

  57

  326

  38

  230

  37

  261

  33

  Selkirk

  916

  47

  567

  57

  418

  40

  423

  39

  398

  39

  Stirling

  3,305

  199

  2,154

  173

  2,533

  152

  3,119

  185

  3,214

  224

  Stonehaven

  1,638

  22

  901

  56

  932

  34

  896

  25

  843

  27

  Stornoway

  375

  12

  421

  9

  366

  8

  364

  6

  388

  8

  Stranraer

  1,258

  72

  1,093

  99

  1,099

  68

  986

  96

  1,037

  97

  Tain

  806

  25

  539

  14

  572

  24

  477

  14

  459

  24

  Wick

  569

  38

  521

  30

  580

  52

  654

  27

  585

  28

  Court unknown

  9

  1

  3

  I

  1

  0

  1

  0

  0

  0

  TOTAL

  145,721

  11,538

  110,012

  11,970

  111,892

  13,001

  108,434

  12,302

  104,057

  11,139

  Interim Liberation Appeals
  Mr. Wilson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list the number of interim liberation appeals which have been(a) successful and (b) unsuccessful, by sheriff court in Scotland, for each of the past five years.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  I regret that the information requested cannot be obtained except at disproportionate cost.

  Local Authorities (Housing)
  Mr. Home Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement on the provision he proposes to make in respect of the financial consequences for local housing authorities of transfers of housing stock to housing associations or co-operatives on the basis of valuations which are less than the outstanding debt attached to the property concerned.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  Local authority borrowing for the purpose of capital investment in housing stock is not secured against the individual properties 114
  subject to, or resulting from, that investment. Debt redemption arising from transfers of housing stock would reduce the overall outstanding capital debt on the housing revenue account of the authority concerned. A reduction in overall outstanding capital debt would lead to a reduction in loans charges falling on the housing revenue account. Where such reductions in loans charges were insufficient to cover the assumed net loss in income arising from reduced rental income and reduced management and maintenance expenditure, the authority would receive increased housing support grant. In the case of those authorities which do not at present qualify for housing support grant, the effect might be to bring such authorities back into qualification.

  Geese
  Mr. Morley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what licensing arrangements are being made, with respect to Greenland white-fronted geese and barnacle geese, for the winter of 1988–89.
  115
  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  No decisions have as yet been taken as to licensing arrangements for shooting geese on Islay during the winter of 1988–89.

  Mr. Morley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland (1) whether, in respect of each licence granted to shoot barnacle geese on the island of Islay, he will provide estimates of yield loss and subsequent financial loss to the respective licensees as a result of damage caused by barnacle geese; and what estimates he made of the loss which would be incurred if no killing took place;

  (2) whether, in respect of each licence granted to shoot Greenland white-fronted geese on the island of Islay, he will provide estimates of yield loss and subsequent financial loss to the respective licensees as a result of damage caused by Greenland white-fronted geese; and what estimates he made of the loss which would occur if no killing took place.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  No specific estimates were made of yield loss or subsequent financial loss against each of the licences issued. Nor were such estimates made against the losses which would have occurred if no killing had taken place. In the judgment of my professional staff uncontrolled grazing by both barnacle and white-fronted geese in significant numbers causes serious damage to improved grassland and crops, with consequent financial loss to the farmers involved. The licences were issued in accordance with the provisions of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 to prevent such damage.

  Mr. Morley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he will be supporting the use of a Manpower Services Commission goose-scaring team on Islay for the 1988–89 winter; and what other arrangements he will be supporting for that winter.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  No support will be available from the Manpower Services Commission for goose scaring on Islay for the 1988–89 winter. Alternative arrangements are under consideration, but no decisions have as yet been taken.

  Mr. Morley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if, pursuant to his reply of 21 June,Official Report, column 512, he will list those areas on Islay that meet the criteria for classification as special protection areas under article 4 of EC directive 79/409 but which have not yet been designated; if he will indicate the number of Greenland white-fronted geese regularly using each area; what consultations have been held with landowners and occupiers concerning the designation of those international sites; when he intends to designate them as specially protected areas; and if such areas are notified as sites of special scientific interest.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  Areas which are considered by the Nature Conservancy Council to meet the selection criteria for special protection areas under article 4 of the EC directive 79/409 were listed by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment in a parliamentary answer on 11 May 1987. Of the eight sites identified on Islay, four—Laggan, Bridgend Flats, Loch Gruinart and Eilean na Muice Duibhe—were classified as SPAs by my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland on 14 July 1988. Two sites—Glac na Criche and Feur Lochain—have been notified as sites of special scientific interest, but have not yet been classified as 116
  SPAs. The council has consulted owners and occupiers over the proposed SPA status of these sites and have recommended them for consideration by my right hon. and learned Friend, who will announce his decision in due course.

  The Rinns of Islay has also been notified as an SSSI and owners and occupiers have been advised of the council's view that the site will qualify as an SPA in due course. The required consultations are still to be completed.

  The Oa has been identified by the council as meeting the selection criteria for designation as an SPA, but further survey work is required to define the boundary of the area that is of special interest. Consequently, the council is not yet in a position to propose the area as an SSSI.

  The NCC estimates that the Oa and the Rinns are regularly used annually by about 1,000 and about 1,800 Greenland white-fronted geese respectively. These are average figures for the years 1983–88 and relate to birds which both feed and roost within these areas. The figures for the Rinns include the areas of Glac na Criche and Feur Lochain SSSIs. These are roosting areas used annually by between 700 and 800 birds.

  Rating Reform
  Mr. Tom Clarke
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will meet the principal of Glasgow university to discuss the effect of the poll tax on Scottish students.

  Mr. Lang
  My right hon. and learned Friend has at present no plans to do so.

  Mr. Home Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will ask the Scottish agricultural wages board to take full account of the effects of the abolition of domestic rates and the introduction of the poll tax on employees living in tied housing in determining wage levels from 1 April 1989.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  I understand that the board—which is an autonomous body not subject to ministerial direction—already has under consideration the possible implications for the remuneration of agricultural workers of the introduction of the community charge.

  Poisoned Bait
  Mr. Morley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland, pursuant to his answer to the hon. Member for Glandford and Scunthorpe of 15 July,Official Report, columns 396–99, what regulations govern the use of poisoned bait to control wildlife pests; and how he defines the meaning of the term wildlife pests.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  The term wildlife pest is taken to mean species of wildlife which do damage to livestock and crops and which are not protected under the provisions of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981. The use of poisonous chemicals for the purposes of controlling wildlife pests is governed by the Protection of Animals (Scotland) Act 1912, the Animals (Cruel Poisons) Act 1962, the Poisons Act 1972, the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 and the Food and Environmental Protection Act 1985.

  Nursery Education
  Mr. Wray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland (1) what proportion of the gross national product has been spent in nursery education in Scotland for each year since 1974;

  (2) what was the total expenditure in nursery education in (a) Scotland, (b) Strathclyde, (c) Greater Glasgow and (d) Glasgow, Provan for each year since 1974, in 1988 moneys.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  Expenditure in Scotland and in Strathclyde region was as follows:

  Total current expenditure on nursery schools and classes (1988 prices)

  (a) Scotland £ million

  (b) Strathclyde £ million

  1976–77

  28·662

  17·462

  1977–78

  28·490

  16·517

  1978–79

  25·736

  12·855

  1979–80

  23·026

  13·220

  1980–81

  24·320

  13·668

  1981–82

  25·076

  14·231

  1982–83

  28·633

  14·522

  1983–84

  28·055

  14·866

  1984–85

  28·685

  14·590

  1985–86

  29·048

  15·172

  1986–87

  29·856

  15·563

  11987–88

  29·170

  14·356

  1 Provisional.

  Note: The percentage which column (a) represents of estimated Scottish GDP at factor cost is 0·1 for each year. Expenditure figures for (a) Scotland and Strathclyde region in 1974–75 and 1975–76 and (b) Greater Glasgow and Glasgow, Provan, are not available.

  Mr. Wray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what is the number of Scottish under-fives who received nursery education for each year since 1974.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  Information on pupils under five attending education authority nursery schools in September of each year is as follows:

  Number

  1975

  22,240

  1976

  25,610

  1977

  29,300

  1978

  31,230

  1979

  31,620

  1980

  32,340

  1981

  33,050

  1982

  34,490

  1983

  36,460

  1984

  37,680

  1985

  not available

  1986

  not available

  1987

  38,980

  Information for 1974 is not readily available.

  Peterhead Prison (Siege)
  Mr. Meacher
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what was the statutory authority for the deployment of forces in the breaking up of the gaol siege at Peterhead prison on 3 October 1987.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply which I gave on 30 June, at column 319, to a question from the hon. Member of Clydebank and Milngavie (Mr. Worthington).

  Opencast Mining
  Mr. Win Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will carry out surveys on the link between serious illness and dust in areas of Scotland where there is opencast coal mining or other activities generating significant levels of dust.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  I am not aware of any authoritative medical survey on this subject and there are no proposals for one to be carried out.

  Islands Agriculture Programme
  Mr. Morley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what is his assessment of the likely effect on wildlife habitats and the environment of the measures to be introduced under the agricultural development programme for the Scottish islands.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  The land improvement measures under the agricultural development programme for Scottish islands will apply to inbye land only and will therefore have minimal effect on wildlife habitats and the environment. The programme allows for payments for the protection of sites of particular importance for the environment and was drawn up in consultation with the Nature Conservancy Council and the Countryside Commission for Scotland.

  Houses in Multiple Occupation
  Mr. Allan Stewart
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he intends to conduct a consultation exercise on powers relating to houses in multiple occupation in Scotland.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The Scottish Development Department has published today a consultation paper on problems relating to houses in multiple occupation in Scotland. The paper is being sent to local authorities and other interested organisations in Scotland. I have also arranged for copies to be placed in the Library. The paper identifies the need to protect both the occupiers of HMOs themselves and the right to a peaceful environment of those living nearby. It also seeks views on a wide range of issues, including the possibility of establishing a licensing system for HMOs. The Government look forward to receiving comments on the proposals in the paper. This should allow the Government to tackle in a considered way the serious problems caused by HMOs in certain parts of Scotland.

  Forestry
  Mr. Jopling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will estimate the percentage self-sufficiency which the United Kingdom enjoys in hard wood timber of a quality which can be grown domestically; and if he will make a statement.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  [holding answer 20 May 1988]: The best estimate is in the region of 55–60 per cent.

  Conservation
  Mr. Galbraith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland which organisations have been or will be consulted by the Forestry Commission in producing the
  119
  new conservation guidelines referred to in page 7 of the new Forestry Commission booklet "Woodland Grant Scheme."

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  [holding answer 27 May 1988]: The Forestry Commission is consulting the Nature Conservancy Council, Timber Growers UK, the Commission and the Countryside for Scotland in the preparation of these guidelines.

  Crafts
  Mr. Allan Stewart
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what representations he has received on the role of the Scottish Development Agency in promoting crafts in Scotland; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Lang
  [holding answer 18 July 1988]: In the last two years 16 representations have been received on the funding and organisation of support for Scottish crafts. The Scottish Development Agency, which is responsible for several aspects of such support, is currently considering future arrangements and will be seeking ministerial approval for any changes in structure in due course. All those involved in the provision of support for Scottish crafts are aware of the importance of providing a viable long-term operating structure and are working towards that end.

  Student Awards
  Mr. Nigel Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will give(a) the total number of mandatory student awards made by his Department in each academic year since 1979 and (b) the total value of those awards in (i) cash terms and (ii) real terms in 1988 prices.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  [holding answer 22 July 1988]: The value of students' maintenance allowances and tuition fees paid under the students allowances scheme and the postgraduate students allowances scheme, in cash terms, and in real terms on a constant 1987–88 base (1988–89 figures are not yet available) was as follows:

  Academic year

  Number of students

  Value of awards (Maintenance etc plus tuition etc fees)

  Actual £ million

  At 1987–88 prices £ million

  1979–80

  53,600

  86·0

  142·9

  1980–81

  55,583

  106·8

  154·1

  1981–82

  57,542

  120·6

  160·5

  1982–83

  57,863

  99·1

  124·1

  1983–84

  58,301

  101·0

  121·3

  1984–85

  59,931

  99·4

  113·9

  1985–86

  58,384

  99·5

  108·4

  1986–87

  158,595

  1103·1

  108·4

  1987–88

  160,900

  1107–8

  107–8

  1 Provisional.

  Notes: (1) In session 1982–83 the rate of tuition fees was reduced.

  (2) 1987–88 price equivalents are based on the average GDP deflator for the first quarter of each year (mid-academic session).

  Water Charge
  Mr. Nigel Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what proportion of the community water charge 120
  will be payable by (a) students, (b) student nurses, (c) families on income support and (d) senior citizens on retirement pensions; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Lang
  [holding answer 22 July 1988]: Persons undertaking a full-time course of education, as defined in the Personal Community Charge (Students) (Scotland) Regulations 1988, will be liable to pay a prescribed percentage (set in those regulations as 20 per cent.) of the personal community charge and the personal community water charge. The Government are now considering, in the light of amendments made to the Local Government Finance Bill, whether student nurses should receive a similar concession.

  All other people liable to pay the personal community charge will be eligible for income related rebates or benefits, in the case of income support recipients amounting to 80 per cent. of their personal community charge liability. Community water charges will not come within the community charge rebate or benefit system. However, under the reformed social security system introduced on 1 April 1988 the minimum contribution towards rates payments, and the overall amount made available through supplementary benefit towards water charges, are taken into account in setting income support levels. Similar principles will apply from April 1989 in respect of the community charge system.

  Primary Health Care
  Mr. Galbraith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland (1) if he will make a further statement on how he plans to fund the changes in primary care in Scotland outlined in the White Paper "Promoting Good Health";

  (2) if he will make a further statement on his plans to impose charges for eye examination and dental checks in Scotland.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  [holding answer 22 July 1988]: The discussions on the Health and Medicines Bill in another place have produced no new arguments in relation to our proposals on charging for sight tests and dental examinations. We remain of the view that it is right that those who can afford to should contribute towards the cost of these examinations. Our proposals rightly exempt those whose circumstances are such that they cannot afford to pay. We do not accept that those who are not exempt will be deterred from seeking treatment. These proposals were part of a package which will make a significant contribution to the improvement of primary health care in Scotland.

  Minor Operations
  Mr. Maclennan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what are the estimated comparative costs of a minor operative procedure performed by(a) a general practitioner and (b) a hospital registrar.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  [holding answer 22 July 1988]: Information is not collected centrally on which to base an estimate of these costs.

  Hernia Repairs and Hip Replacements
  Mr. Fearn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will give the number of hernia repairs and hip
  121
  replacement operations performed in each area, in each year since 1974 to the latest date for which figures are available.

  Number of in-patients discharged in each health board in each year from 1974 to 1986 where the principle operation was hernioplasty (inguinal and femoral)

  Health board

  1974

  1975

  1976

  1977

  1978

  1979

  1980

  1981

  1982

  1983

  1984

  1985

  1986

  Argyll and Clyde

  1496

  474

  530

  467

  389

  406

  415

  482

  292

  449

  428

  351

  460

  Ayr and Arran

  1392

  376

  421

  401

  431

  474

  502

  478

  471

  553

  484

  507

  528

  Borders

  1111

  108

  145

  130

  138

  126

  120

  162

  141

  152

  146

  149

  149

  Dumfries and Galloway

  1192

  183

  217

  249

  218

  191

  215

  224

  157

  226

  244

  182

  226

  Fife

  1414

  391

  420

  374

  323

  417

  375

  428

  208

  376

  413

  429

  431

  Forth Valley

  1347

  332

  353

  344

  380

  351

  347

  336

  285

  434

  386

  441

  349

  Grampian

  1750

  707

  689

  750

  678

  629

  695

  677

  515

  775

  748

  746

  762

  Greater Glasgow

  11,915

  1,824

  1,855

  1,916

  1,752

  1,813

  1,860

  1,645

  931

  1,802

  1,731

  1,671

  1,688

  Highland

  1281

  267

  289

  290

  261

  306

  315

  294

  272

  306

  317

  284

  313

  Lanarkshire

  1399

  377

  483

  528

  436

  534

  515

  515

  365

  620

  619

  674

  587

  Lothian

  11,303

  1,241

  1,254

  1,295

  1,089

  1,175

  1,110

  1,127

  857

  1,285

  1,156

  1,121

  1,079

  Orkney

  130

  31

  35

  36

  21

  38

  27

  29

  29

  23

  28

  22

  28

  Shetland

  122

  23

  17

  24

  15

  27

  35

  45

  37

  39

  31

  28

  31

  Tayside

  1704

  669

  689

  765

  704

  701

  651

  591

  562

  833

  762

  783

  744

  Western Isles

  130

  30

  20

  30

  38

  36

  30

  34

  45

  48

  37

  34

  40

  Scotland

  7,386

  7,033

  7,417

  7,599

  6,873

  7,244

  7,212

  7,067

  5,167

  7,921

  7,530

  7,422

  7,415

  1 Estimated.

HOUSE OF COMMONS

  Act of Settlement 1688 (Ceremony)
  Mr. Cryer
  To ask the Lord President of the Council what was the cost of the ceremony commemorating the Act of Settlement 1688; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Wakeham
  Most of the costs of the ceremony on 20 July, when Addresses were presented to Her Majesty The Queen to mark the tercentenary of the revolutions of 1688–89 and of the Bill or Rights and Claim of Right, will be borne initially by the Property Services Agency. Final figures for the cost are not yet available, but provision has been included in class XX, vote 20 and class XX A, vote 1, of the Estimates for 1988–89 for the Houses of Parliament to repay approximately £40,000 to PSA for these services; this will be shared equally between the two Houses.

  Facilities (Hire)
  Mr. Cryer
  To ask the Lord President of the Council whether the House of Commons Terrace is available for hire to outside organisations; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Wakeham
  No. Only Members and Officers of the House may sponsor functions in the Terrace Pavilion.

  Mr. Cryer
  To ask the Lord President of the Council if he will list the charges made for the hire of private dining rooms in the Palace at Westminster.

  Mr. Wakeham
  Minimum hire charges for private dining rooms are levied only when the total cost of food provided is less than the advance deposit required.

  The relevant deposits are set out in the information booklet "Banqueting Department" available from the Refreshment Department.

  Mr. Cryer
  To ask the Lord President of the Council whether any charge is made to commercial organisations for displays in the Upper Waiting Hall; what rules govern advertising; who gives permission for displays; and if he will make a statement.
  122
  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  [holding answer 22 July 1988]: The information requested is as follows:

  Mr. Wakeham
  No charge is made for the exhibitions in the Upper Waiting Hall, which can only be mounted by a right hon. or hon. Member.

  The rules governing the arrangements for these exhibitions are set out in the Serjeant At Arms' Department information leaflet "Exhibitions in the Upper Waiting Hall," which clearly states that exhibitions should not contain items of advertising or commercial interest nor material explicitly intended to further the aims of any political party or group. In accordance with the procedures approved by the Services Committee, an hon. Member wishing to book an exhibition space should submit his application to the relevant Government Department and also the Chairman of the A and A Sub-Committee for approval.

  Ten-minute Bills
  Mr. Amess
  To ask the Lord President of the Council if he will move to refer to the Select Committee on Procedure the matter of the practice governing the giving of notice by Members of motions for leave to bring in Bills under Standing Order No. 19; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Wakeham
  This is a matter which is already within the terms of reference of the Procedure Committee. I am sure that it will have noted the representations made by my hon. Friend and other hon. Members.

TRANSPORT

  West London (Schemes)
  Mr. Soley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport (1) what assumption has been made in the west London assessment study about the proposed traffic capacity of the west London corridor;

  (2) what are the limits to the increase or decrease in traffic that are considered practical for testing in the west London assessment study; what level of relief in traffic levels is being sought; and what assumptions are being made about future car ownership.
  123
  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  The study consultants have made an initial assessment of the impact of each option on existing traffic movement patterns. Growth and capacity assumptions and forecasting techniques will be addressed in the detailed assessment and testing of the options in the rest of stage 2.

  Mr. Soley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what proposals he has to compensate(a) local authorities, (b) housing associations and (c) owner-occupiers if the western environmental improvement route is constructed.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  The usual statutory compensation provisions would apply. Copies of booklets giving details of these provisions have been placed in the Library.

  Driving Licence (Welsh Language)
  Mr. Gareth Wardell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will give consideration to the issue of a driving licence in the Welsh language.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  The DVLC issues a bilingual driving licence to drivers with addresses in Wales. Licences are used throughout the United Kingdom and it is not practicable for them to be wholly in Welsh.

  London Underground (Fire Safety)
  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will place in the Library copies of the reports of London Fire Brigade inspections of London Underground deep underground stations carried out so far in the current year.

  Mr. David Mitchell
  No. Reports of such fire inspections are produced by London Underground's chief fire inspector who accompanies the London fire brigade for the information of and use by London Underground Limited. The hon. Member should apply to London Regional Transport for the information he requires.

  Bus Lanes (Westminster)
  Mr. Marlow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will establish an inquiry into the continuing need for those bus lanes instituted by the former greater London Council in the vicinity of the Palace of Westminster on roads for which he is now responsible.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  No. The City of Westminster became responsible for this road on 1 April 1986. It commissioned studies into the effect of the then experimental bus lanes. It concluded that they were beneficial. After due consultation it decided that the bus lanes should be made permanent. It applied to the Secretary of State for approval under paragraph 5 of schedule 5 to the Local Government Act 1985 because the route is a designated road. The Secretary of State considered that there was no adverse effect on the movement of traffic on the designated road network and approved the proposal.

  Taxi and Car Hire Trades (Consulation Document)
  Mr. Bendall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport whether he will consider increasing the time limit allowed for submissions on the consultation document on the taxi and car hire trades.
  124
  Mr. David Mitchell
  I have written in reply to my hon. Friend's letter on this subject giving an extension to the end of September.

  Nuclear Waste
  Mr. Home Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a statement on arrangements for monitoring the transport of nuclear waste material from Torness power station, and for regulating the frequency of consignments and the route to be taken.

  Mr. David Mitchell
  Spent nuclear fuel will be moved from Torness power station to Sellafield in strict accordance with national and international regulations which require the design of the flask to be able to withstand severe accident conditions without radiation risk. The Department is responsible for ensuring compliance with the regulations, but this does not involve controls over the routeing or frequency of consignments because safety is provided by the strength of the container.

SOCIAL SERVICES

  Supplementary Benefits (Cleveland)
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services what was the cost of supplementary benefit single payments for each of his Department's local offices in the county of Cleveland in May 1985, May 1986 and May 1988; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Portillo
  I refer the hon. Member to my reply to the hon. Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair) on 21 July. The additional figures requested for the month of May 1988 are given in the table. The local offices shown are those situated in Cleveland but office and county boundaries are not conterminous. The figures shown are provisional and subject to amendment.

  Single payment expenditure in May 1988

  Office

  £

  Eston

  6,115

  Hartlepool

  12,994

  Middlesbrough

  32,478

  Redcar

  6,420

  Stockton

  47,278

  Coronary Bypass Operations
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services what was the number of people waiting for coronary artery bypass operations in each regional health authority in June.

  Mr. Newton
  Waiting list information is not collected centrally by type of operation.

  Pay Awards
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services if he will make it his policy to bring pay awards forward to before the beginning of the financial year to enable regional health authorities and district health authorities to plan future annual budgets; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Newton
  We recognise the desirability of early settlements in the interests both of the staff concerned and
  125
  of bringing greater certainty into the health authority planning process. For doctors, dentists, nursing staff, midwives, health visitors and the professions allied to medicine, we expect this to be greatly assisted by the change from 1989 in the timetable for review body reports, which my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has asked the review bodies to submit some three months earlier than hitherto. This change should also help in achieving earlier settlements for those groups whose pay and conditions of service are negotiated in the Whitley councils. The conduct of those negotiations is a matter for the respective management sides and the speed with which they can be concluded also depends on the response of the staff sides to the offers which are made.

  Voluntary Organisations (Funding)
  Mr. Ashley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services (1) if he will list the voluntary organisations who were previously receiving section 64 grants and whose applications for funding for general purposes in 1988–89 were rejected, stating in each case the number of years for which the organisation had been funded; and if he will give the reasons for the rejection in each case;

  Average daily number of available beds in the London post-graduate hospitals

  Change

  Name of hospital

  Address

  1982

  1986

  Number

  per cent.

  Hospital for Sick Children1

  London WC1

  307·5

  294·6

  -12·9

  -4·2

  Hospital for Sick Children4

  Tadworth, Surrey

  64·7

  0·0

  -64·7

  -100·0

  Queen Elizabeth Hospital for Children1

  122·2

  107·6

  -14·6

  -11·9

  The National Hospital for Nervous Diseases1

  London WC1

  199·5

  193·8

  -5·7

  -2·9

  Maida Vale Hospital for Nervous Diseases1

  London W9

  81·9

  72·1

  -9·8

  -12·0

  The National Hospital for Nervous Diseases1

  London W2

  24·3

  27·0

  2·7

  11·1

  Chalfont Centre for Epilepsy

  Chalfont St. Peter, Bucks.

  50·0

  45·0

  -5·0

  -10·0

  The Royal National Throat Nose and Ear Hospital2

  London WC1

  109·3

  54·3

  -55·0

  -50·3

  The Royal National Throat Nose and Ear Hospital2

  London W1

  Moorfields Eye Hospital1

  London EC1

  207·8

  151·7

  -56·1

  -27·0

  Bethlem Royal and Maudsley Hospital1

  London SE5

  500·8

  511·3

  10·5

  2·1

  St. John's Hospital for Diseases of the Skin2

  London WC2

  54·1

  52·9

  -1·2

  -2·2

  Brompton Hospital1

  London SW3

  250·3

  227·2

  -23·1

  -9·2

  Brompton Hospital3

  Frialey, Surrey

  105·8

  0·0

  -105·8

  -100·0

  London Chest Hospital1

  London E2

  127·3

  120·6

  -6·7

  -5·3

  National Heart Hospital1

  London W1

  72·2

  75·4

  3·2

  4·4

  Royal National Orthopaedic Hospital2

  London W1

  85·4

  35·8

  -49·6

  -58·1

  Royal National Orthopaedic Hospital21

  Stanmore, Middlesex

  245·1

  202·7

  -42·4

  -17·3

  St. Peter's Hospital2

  London WC2

  37·5

  34·5

  -3·0

  -8·0

  St. Paul's Hospital2

  London WC2

  36·7

  31·5

  -5·2

  -14·2

  St. Phillip's Hospital2

  London WC2

  15·6

  10·8

  -4·8

  -30·8

  The Shaftesbury Hospital2

  London WC2

  36·4

  27·1

  -9·3

  -25·5

  The Royal Marsden Hospital1

  London SW3

  185·6

  193·4

  7·8

  4·2

  The Royal Marsden Hospital1

  Sutton, Surrey

  154·6

  160·8

  6·2

  4·0

  Queen Charlotte's Maternity Hospital1

  London W6

  165·1

  150·8

  -14·3

  -8·7

  Chelsea Hospital for Women1

  London SW3

  81·9

  66·7

  -15·2

  -18·6

  Queen Charlotte's Hospital Convalescent Home3

  St. Leonards on Sea, Sussex

  42·0

  0·0

  -42·0

  -100·0

  Hammersmith Hospital1

  London W12

  547·1

  555·1

  8·0

  1·5

  Acton Hospital1

  London W3

  55·3

  72·0

  16·7

  30·2

  Eastmans Dental Hospital1

  London WC1

  0·0

  0·0

  0·0

  0·0

  1 Now a special health authority.

  2 Now administered by district health authorities.

  3 Hospital closed.

  4 Ceased to be a National Health Service hospital.

  Social Services Staff (Assaults)
  Mr. Tom Clarke
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services what steps he will take to collect information centrally on assaults on social services staff in the course of their duties.
  126
  (2) what are the reasons for the decline in the total of grants made under section 64 procedure from £14,443, 694 in 1987–88 to £7,211,705 in 1988–89; and if there have been any changes in the criteria applied.

  Mr. Portillo
  I refer the right hon. Member to my reply to him on 27 June at columns 124–29. The figure of £7,211,705 refers to grants awarded as at 22 June 1988. The total amount available for the 1988–89 financial year is £14,243,000. There have been no changes in the criteria for awarding grants.

  Funding applications are received and decisions on grants are made at varying times during the year. Full details of applications rejected for grant aid in 1988–89 will not therefore be available until after the end of the financial year.

  Postgraduate Hospitals (Beds)
  Mr. Ashley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services if he will give the absolute and percentage change, since reorganisation, in the number of beds in each of the postgraduate hospitals, stating, in each case, whether the hospital is now a special health authority or a member of a district health authority.

  Mrs. Currie
  The information requested is given in the table.

  Mr. Newton
  The "Guidelines and Recommendations to Employers on Violence against Employees" published last year by the Association of Directors of Social Services recommended authorities to arrange for the recording and monitoring of incidents concerning the staff of social services departments. We have no plans for the national collation of such information.

  Long-term Institutional Care
  Mr. Tom Clarke
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services, pursuant to the answer to the hon. Member for Monklands, West of 7 June,Official Report, column 564, if he intends to collect data centrally on the outcome of patients discharged from institutional care.

  Mrs. Currie
  The central collection of statistics on the outcome of patients discharged from institutional care will be reviewed with the proposals of the Government to the Griffiths report, "Community Care: Agenda for Action".

  Disabled People (Legislation)
  Mr. Tom Clarke
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services, pursuant to the answer to the hon. Member for Monklands, West of Tuesday 7 June,Official Report, column 573, whether he has yet arranged a meeting with local authority associations on the implementation of the Disabled Persons (Services, Representation and Consultation) Act 1986; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Scott
  Officials met representatives of the local authority associations on 4 July to discuss the implementation of the remaining sections of the Act. We hope to implement section 11 soon. Of the other sections, representatives of the local authorities share our view that priority should be given to implementing section 7, and we have already started detailed work on this. The next priority is to implement sections 1, 2, and 3. The financial implications of each section must, of course, be agreed before implementation.

  Attendance Allowance
  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services (1) how many applications for attendance allowance were(a) made and (b) granted in the last year for which figures are available;

  (2) how many applications for attendance were disallowed, not including those granted after appeal, in the last year for which figures are available;

  (3) how many claims for attendance allowance were disallowed following an initial medical report, by the attendance allowance board, but were granted attendance allowance after appeal, for the last year for which figures are available.

  Mr. Scott
  The information requested is in the table.

  Attendance Allowance 1987

  Number

  Claims Received

  319,667

  Claims Successful at initial stage

  208,693

  Claims Unsuccessful at initial stage

  91,888

  Claims Successful on review1

  44,104

  1 Claims successful on review include:

  (i) claims made before 1987.

  (ii) claims where the allowance is awarded for the first time.

  (iii) claims where the allowance awarded is increased from lower to higher rate.

  (iv) claims where the allowance is awarded for a longer period.

  Development Programme
  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services how he intends to monitor district health 128
  authorities' progress in implementing his Department's 2 per cent. development programme; and what action he will take to ensure that each district health authority achieves the 2 per cent. target.

  Mr. Newton
  No such target has been set. The provision and development of district health authority services are monitored by regions as part of a cyclical planning and review process. The Department similarly approves regional health authority plans and reviews performance annually, against the background of the broad policy aims set out in the annual planning guidelines. A copy of the latest guidelines, for 1989–90 and 1990–91 (circular HC (88) 43) is in the Library.

  NHS (Cost Improvements)
  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services what is the financial value of non-cash releasing cost improvements made in the National Health Service identified by the Department in response to the Social Services Committee; what proportion of the underfunding of the Health Service identified by the Social Services Committee these non-cash releasing cost improvements constitute; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Newton
  The Government's formal response to the Committee's first two reports on the resourcing of the National Health Service was published on 22 June (Cm. 405).

  The latest available information on movements in unit costs relates to 1986–87. Making no allowance for efficiency gains between 1986–87 and 1987–88 other than those attributable to cash releasing cost improvements, it can be shown that if unit costs had remained at their 1983–84 levels (apart from the effect of inflation) it would have cost nearly £900 million more to maintain 1987–88 service levels than was actually the case. About two thirds of this figure was attributable to cash releasing cost improvements.

  However any estimate of efficiency gains other than cash-releasing cost improvements will necessarily be a less precise and certain figure than that for cash-releasing cost improvements, for which the savings are specifically monitored.

  Health Authorities (Cuts and Closures)
  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services what action he takes to collect information on cuts and closures in individual health authorities.

  Mrs. Currie
  Information on health authorities' plans to change the way in which services are delivered, which may involve closures, is received through formal and informal contacts with health authorities. Major changes are outlined in short term programmes. Closures which are opposed by the community health council come to Ministers for decisions. Details of hospitals and facilities approved for permanent closure following public consultation are routinely collected centrally. Returns of hospital activity, which is the final indicator of the level of services being provided for patients, are received quarterly.

  National Insurance Contributions (Refunds)
  Mr. Latham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services how many cases are known to his Department
  129
  currently, or in the last year for which records are available, where a person has been unable to claim back excess payments of class 2 contributions, as in the case of Mr. W., a constituent of the hon. Member for Rutland and Melton, whose name is given in the letter of 7 June from Lord Skelmersdale to the hon. Member, reference PO(6) 2487/9; and whether he will seek powers to be able to make ex gratia refunds in similar cases in future.

  Mr. Portillo
  The Department does not separately identify this type of case in its records.

  As my noble Friend explained in his letter, information on the small earnings exception is made avalable at the outset to those applying to pay national insurance contributions on a self-employed basis. I do not therefore consider that there are grounds for seeking powers to make refunds of contributions in cases where the opportunity to apply for small earnings exception is taken up later than it might have been.

  Social Fund
  Mr. Tom Clarke
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services what arrangements are presently in operation for public access to expenditure information on the social fund.

  Mr. Portillo
  Details of individual local office expenditure on the social fund are placed in the Library at monthly intervals. Copies of this information are held at the Department's libraries where they may be viewed by appointment. Two copies are deposited with the British Library, one of which may be borrowed by other libraries for inquirers; the other copy can be consulted at the British Library. Microfiche copies may be purchased from Messrs. Chadwyck-Healey of Cambridge. In addition we expect local office managers to respond to reasonable requests to provide expenditure information as at the end of the preceding month.

  Mrs. Beckett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services whether he will publish in the Official Report the social fund expenditure of each local office in Great Britain for loans and grants, respectively, and the same figures expressed as percentages of monthly profiles, for each month from April to June 1988, on the same basis as the information for Northern Ireland offices given by the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland on 13 July in his answer to the hon. Member for Redcar (Ms. Mowlam), Official Report, columns 249–52.

  Mr. Portillo
  Details of social fund expenditure to the end of June are in the Library. Information relating to expenditure as a percentage of monthly profile for over 450 local offices in Great Britain could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Mr. C. H. Thomas
  Mr. Gareth Wardell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services if he will establish an internal inquiry into why Mr. C. H. Thomas, of West Cross, Swansea, who received confirmation on 29 February (Reference TX 3866481) that he satisfies the condition for the lower rate of attendance allowance, has not received payment.

  Mr. Scott
  Mr. Thomas' claim was finally decided on 5 May and payment was made on 11 July. I regret that processing of the claim took much longer than is usual and I am writing to the hon. Member.

  Peel Report
  Mrs. Ann Winterton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services whether the recommendations of the Peel report on the use of foetuses and foetal material have been enacted.

  Mr. Newton
  The code of practice recommended in the Peel report on the use of foetuses and foetal material for research has been commended to health authorities. In the private sector, places approved to carry out abortions may supply foetal material for research only in accordance with this code and with the specific approval of the Secretary of State. In view of the continued advance in medical techniques since the Peel report was published, my right hon. Friend has recently set up a committee to review its recommendations.

  Social Services (London)
  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services if he will publish a table in the Official Report showing what information he has as to social services department budgets for 1987–88 and for 1988–89, for each local authority in London.

  Mr. Newton
  The table shows the latest available information on London local authorities social services department budgets for 1988–89 and the equivalent figure for 1987–88.

  1987–88 £ million

  1988–89 £ million

  City of London

  1·785

  1·940

  Camden

  39·146

  33·596

  Greenwich

  29·177

  29·577

  Hackney

  41·866

  42·884

  Hammersmith and Fulham

  25·545

  27·176

  Islington

  40·788

  39·977

  Kensington and Chelsea

  19·304

  22·373

  Lambeth

  43·843

  49·499

  Lewisham

  40·187

  42·098

  Southwark

  37·483

  43·271

  Tower Hamlets

  22·793

  24·046

  Wandsworth

  36·426

  40·862

  Westminster

  31·029

  33·625

  Barking and Dagenham

  11·192

  11·973

  Barnet

  19·718

  21·118

  Bexley

  11·833

  13·040

  Brent

  36·204

  N/A

  Bromley

  15·411

  16·929

  Croydon

  22·234

  24·883

  Ealing

  25·049

  28·391

  Enfield

  17·384

  21·003

  Haringey

  32·709

  N/A

  Harrow

  11·955

  13·793

  Havering

  14·316

  15·538

  Hillingdon

  19·651

  23·008

  Hounslow

  18·057

  20·299

  Kingston upon Thames

  9·748

  10·753

  Merton

  13·030

  14·323

  Newham

  22·777

  26·136

  Redbridge

  13·943

  16·013

  Richmond upon Thames

  10·224

  11·266

  Sutton

  9·916

  11·456

  Waltham Forest

  26·817

  27·703

  Source: LA Return of Expenditure and Rates returns 1987 and 1988.

  Dispensing Doctors
  Mr. Boswell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services what is the proportion of all National Health
  131
  Service prescriptions written by dispensing doctors; and what proportion of all National Health Service doctors' lists the patients on dispensing doctors' lists represent.

  Mr. Newton
  In 1986 a total of 6 per cent. of National Health Service prescriptions in England were written and dispensed by dispensing doctors for patients on their dispensing lists. In the same year 6 per cent. of all National Health Service patients in England were patients on dispensing doctors' lists for whom those doctors can dispense.

  Community Care
  Mr. Tom Clarke
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services what further representations he has received regarding the Griffiths report on community care; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Newton
  We have received 121 representations from interested individuals and organisations and will take account of them in framing our own proposals.

  Chiropody
  Mr. Atkinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services if, pursuant to his answer of 22 April,Official Report, column 596, on the future of the chiropody service and profession, he is now able to make a further statement.

  Mrs. Currie
  There are a number of issues which need to be resolved and discussions on these are likely to take some time. We recognise the importance of foot care for large numbers of people, particularly the elderly, and our efforts are directed towards a better and more accessible service in future.

  NHS (Private Facilities)
  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services what is the full gross annual cost to the National Health Service of administering the use of private beds and private facilities within the National Health Service for the latest available year.

  Mrs. Currie
  Charges for the use of private facilities within the National Health Service are calculated so as to recover the full gross cost of those facilities. In 1986–87, the latest year for which information is available, the full gross cost of providing private beds and facilities is reflected by the amount of total income for that year, which was £61 million. A list of the charges in force in 1986–87 is contained in circular HC(86)6, a copy of which is in the Library.

  Ward Sisters
  Ms. Armstrong
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services what advice his Department gives to local managers whose ward sisters meet seven of the 11 criteria for a grading of 'I' but do not qualify for the grading because they manage one ward only.

  Mr. Newton
  The guidance which the Department has issued makes clear that posts must meet the grading definitions as a whole.

  Clinical Regrading
  Ms. Armstrong
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services whether the money available to health authorities for clinical regrading is intended to cover the funded establishment.

  Mr. Newton
  The additional money we have provided is to meet the cost of all review body pay awards. Our estimate of the total cost was based on the number of staff in post at 31 March 1988 and took account of both directly employed and agency staff.

  Ms. Armstrong
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services how many representations he has received from district health authorities regarding clarification of the guidance his Department has issued on clinical grading of nurses.

  Mr. Newton
  We have received a number of formal and informal representations as a result of which we issued supplementary guidance to health authorities earlier this month.

  National Health Service (Regional Funding)
  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services if he will make a statement(a) on the way in which money is allocated between different National Health Service regions at present and (b) on the way in which money would be allocated between different regions under the formula being considered by the National Health Service Management Board giving details of gains and losses.

  Mr. Newton
  There are two stages to the resource allocation process. The resource allocation working party formula is used to determine each region's target "fair share" of the available resources; Ministers then decide on the pace at which regions' annual allocations are to be adjusted to bring them into line with these targets.

  The existing resource allocation working party formula measures the relative needs of each region by taking account of population (and the relative use made of health services by people of different age groups and sexes); morbidity as indicated by standardised mortality ratios; patient flows between regions; and higher staff costs in London and the south-east. A separate adjustment is made to account for the extra service costs associated with medical teaching.

  The National Health Service management board's review of the resource allocation working party formula examined each component of the formula and made recommendations aimed at improving its measurement of relative need. Full details of the recommendations, and of the effects they would have on regions' funding targets, are contained in the final report on the review, which was published on 19 July. A copy is in the Library. Decisions on annual allocations were outside the remit of the review, and the report recommends only that the effects of any changes should be carefully phased, to avoid major disruption to health authorities' existing plans. It is not therefore possible to estimate what would be the effects of the review recommendations on regions' annual allocations.

  As my right hon. Friend announced in his reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Brentwood and Ongar (Mr.

  133
  McCrindle) on 19 July at column 559, the Government will consider this report in the wider context of the National Health Service review.

  Christies Hospital, Manchester
  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services what response he has given to the request by the North Western regional health authority for an extra allocation of £200,000 to fund Christies hospital in Manchester.

  Mr. Newton
  I hope to respond to the regional health authority's approach shortly.

  Immigrants (Pensions)
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services, whether arrangements have been made with the Governments of (i) India, (ii) Bangladesh and (iii) Pakistan for pensions to be updated for immigrants from those countries who return upon retirement to their countries of origin.

  Mr. Portillo
  No such arrangements have been made.

  Perfusionists
  Mr. Nellist
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services why the management side of the professional and technical staffs B of Whitley council have not so far conceded the regrading of perfusionists; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Newton
  I understand that the grading of this particular group of staff has not been raised in the Whitley council.

  Tranquillisers
  Mr. Wareing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services what representations he has had for financial assistance to be granted to the Council for Involuntary Tranquilliser Addiction on Merseyside; what his response has been; and if he will make a statement.

  Mrs. Currie
  Section 64 grants are essentially for organisations providing a national resource, rather than for direct client services. The latter are generally best provided and funded locally. The Council for Involuntary Tranquilliser Addiction submitted an application for funding on 30 June. The Department is considering this application along with other candidates for grants, and we shall let the council have a decision as soon as possible.

  North Staffordshire Health Authority
  Ms. Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services how much money was(a) expected to be allocated to North Staffordshire district health authority under the resources allocation working party formula and (b) was actually allocated, in each of the last five years for which figures are available.

  Mr. Newton
  Allocations to individual district health authorities are a matter for regional health authorities. For information on North Staffordshire's allocations the hon. Member may wish to write to the chairman of the West Midlands regional health authority.
  134
  Ms. Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services what assessment he has made of the effect on(a) the budget of and (b) the services provided by North Staffordshire district health authority were the review of the resources allocation working party formula final report to be implemented.

  Mr. Newton
  The review's remit was confined to the national resource allocation working party formula.

  Social Fund
  Mrs. Beckett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services whether a hospital patient whose invalidity benefit on discharge from hospital will be 20p per week above the level of income support can be awarded a social fund grant to enable discharge to take place.

  Mr. Portillo
  Community care grants are available only to people in receipt of income support at the date of application or who, up to within six weeks of discharge from institutional or residential care will, in the opinion of the social fund officer, be likely to receive income support on discharge.

  Higher Pensioner Premium
  Mrs. Beckett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services what would be the cost of extending entitlement to the higher pensioner premium to those people aged 60 to 79 years who would have been entitled to it if the income support scheme had commenced before they were 60 years; and how many people would benefit from this change.

  Mr. Scott
  Information on which to base such estimates is not available for the whole of the period concerned.

  Income Support Disability Premium
  Mrs. Beckett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services whether he will extend entitlement to the income support disability premium to claimants who have, for 28 weeks, been treated as incapable of work for the purpose of exemption from the requirement to be available for employment and who do not qualify for the premium on other grounds.

  Mr. Scott
  We have no plans to do so.

  Doctors (Disciplinary Proceedings)
  Mr. Sedgemore
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services (1) how many doctors are currently suspended pending disciplinary hearings under(a) HM (61) 112 procedures, (b) 5HM/49/1968 procedures, (c) HC (82) 13 procedures and (d) section 40 of the Whitley council; and if he will break down these figures by sex, ethnic origin, country of qualification, regions in England and Wales;

  (2) how many doctors were suspended in each region in each year from 1979 to the present day;

  (3) what is the average time taken to deal with disciplinary cases under (a) HM (61) 112 procedures, (b) HC (82) 13 procedures, (c) 5HM/49/1968 procedures and (d) section 40 of the Whitley council; and if he will give detail of regional variations;

  (4) for how long doctors currently suspended have been suspended; and in how many of the cases there is a date set for the inquiry;
  135
  (5) what was the outcome of suspensions after the inquiry and how many doctors were dismissed, reprimanded or resigned in total and in each region for the last year for which figures are available;

  (6) how many dismissed doctors went to industrial tribunals in the last year for which figures are available; and what was the outcome as regards dismissal and reinstatement;

  (7) what is the estimated average annual cost to the health services of suspending doctors, taking into account salaries, legal costs, employing locums, negligence claims against authorities and doctors awarded costs for wrongful dismissal;

  (8) how many doctors are currently suspended for reasons of (a) mental health, (b) physical health, (c) misconduct, (d) incompetence and (e) fraud, where there are disciplinary procedures pending under: (i) HM (61) 112, (ii) HC (82) 13, (iii) SHM/49/1968 and (iv) section 40 of the Whitley council.

  Mr. Newton
  This information is not collected centrally. We understand however that there are relatively few cases at one time.

  Mr. Sedgemore
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services how many dismissed doctors appealed under section 190 of the red book in the last year for which figures are available; what was the outcome of the appeals; and if he will break these figures down by sex and ethnic origin.

  Mr. Newton
  The number of doctors who appeal under paragraph 190 of the hospital medical and dental staff terms and conditions of service varies considerably from year to year. In 1986 there were four appeals: in two dismissal was confirmed and the other two the Secretary of State determined that he did not have jurisdiction. In 1987 a total of 11 appeals were made: in one case jurisdiction was declined, four others were withdrawn or settled locally, and the remaining six are still in progress. I regret that the information available centrally does not enable me to give the other breakdown.

  Health Authorities (Disciplinary Procedures)
  Mr. Sedgemore
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services how his Department, regional health authorities or district health authorities monitor suspensions and disciplinary procedures.

  Mr. Newton
  The monitoring of suspensions and disciplinary procedures is the responsibility of the relevant health authority. Because of concern about the operation of disciplinary procedures for doctors, the then Secretary of State set up a joint working party with the profession last year to review hospital and Community doctors' and dentists' disciplinary procedures. The working party is expected to report this summer.

  Supplementary Benefit
  Mr. Clay
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services if he will publish a table showing the value of supplementary benefit for a couple with two children, aged six and eight years as a percentage of average net earnings for all men and all manual men for each year since 1978 to April 1987.

  Mr. Portillo
  The information is in the table.
  136
  It should be noted that these figures take no account of other benefits available to either families receiving supplementary benefit or families who are in full time work. In particular, the value of housing benefit and of child benefit is excluded.

  Supplementary benefit rate expressed as a percentage of average net weekly earnings

  Uprating dates

  All adult males Married couple with two children per cent.

  All male manuals Married couple with two children per cent.

  November 19781

  51·1

  55·1

  November 1979

  50·5

  54·8

  November 1980

  50·3

  56·3

  November 1981

  50·8

  57·6

  November 1982

  52·6

  59·9

  November 1983

  50·9

  58·2

  November 1984

  48·9

  56·1

  November 1985

  48·1

  55·4

  July 1986

  45·7

  53·1

  April 1987

  43·0

  50·7

  1 1978—Child benefit not included, but child tax allowance is included.

  Note: Net average earnings are the estimates of average gross weekly earnings less tax and national insurance contributions at the non-contracted out rate.

  Coventry Family Practitioner Committee
  Mr. John Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services (1) if he will publish his reply to the letters from the Association of National Health Service Officers dated 10 June and 20 April 1988;

  (2) what information he has as to breaches of the Data Protection Act by a lay menber of the Coventry family practitioner committee; what action he proposes to take; and if he will make a statement;

  (3) what representations he has received from the Association of National Health Service Officers concerning threats allegedly made against a senior officer, and threats of redundancies made to a trade union official pursuing a grievance; what action he proposes to take; and if he will make a statement.

  Mrs. Currie
  Officials replied to the association on 20 July 1988. Publication of the correspondence is a matter for the association.

  Mr. John Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services if he will establish an internal inquiry into the allegations of misconduct by the Coventry family practitioner committee made by the hon. Member for Coventry, North-East on 10 June,Official Report, columns 1151–53.

  Mrs. Currie
  I wrote to the hon. Member about this matter on 5 July. I understand he has accepted an invitation to discuss with the FPC chairman the matters he raised during the debate and will be meeting her today.

  Unemployment and Redundancy
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services whether he will publish in the Official Report, a table showing for 1987–88 and his forecast for 1988–89 of (a) the total cost of benefits paid to unemployed people and (b) the total expenditure from the redundancy fund.

  Mr. Portillo
  The information requested is set out in the "Government's Expenditure Plans 1988–89 to 1990–91",
  137
  volume II, a copy of which is in the Library. The figures for(a) are in table 15.8 on page 267, and for (b) in table 7.26 on page 115.

  NHS Staff
  Mr. Robin Cook
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will give figures showing a total

  Region

  NHS Directly employed staff in post1

  Salaries and wages expenditure2

  All other expenditure

  Total revenue and capital expenditure

  Whole-time equivalent

  £000

  £000

  £000

  Northern

  53,510

  497,185

  220,167

  717,352

  Yorkshire

  59,570

  556,112

  261,978

  818,090

  Trent

  74,310

  679,499

  312,467

  991,966

  East Anglian

  30,490

  288,879

  133,073

  421,952

  North-West Thames

  54,810

  556,905

  287,419

  844,324

  North-East Thames

  69,060

  704,648

  347,356

  1,052,004

  South-East Thames

  61,860

  620,021

  313,585

  933,606

  South-West Thames

  48,510

  502,226

  202,017

  :'04,243

  Wessex

  43,520

  410,178

  209,973

  620,151

  Oxford

  33,210

  322,302

  145,046

  467,348

  South-Western

  52,370

  485,733

  232,696

  718,429

  West Midlands

  84,230

  784,783

  380,210

  1,164,993

  Mersey

  42,870

  404,346

  186,917

  591,263

  North-Western

  74,080

  698,112

  289,913

  988;025

  All regions

  782,400

  7,510,929

  3,522,817

  11,033,746

  Special Health Authorities1

  10,990

  128,798

  90,913

  219,711

  Total

  793,390

  7,639,727

  3,613,730

  11,253,457

  Sources: Annual census of NHS medical and non medical manpower—as at 30 September 1986. 1986–87 annual accounts submitted to the Department by regional and district health authorities in England and the special health authorities for the London postgraduate teaching hospitals.

  Notes:

  1 Includes permanent paid, honorary and locum medical and dental staff; agency nursing and midwifery staff. (The figure for the South West Thames region includes London Ambulance Service staff—2,850 whole time equivalents).

  2 Excludes expenditure on categories of non-NHS staff outside the scope of the annual census of NHS medical and non-medical manpower. Such costs (totalling some £81,757,000) are however included in the figures for "all other" and "total revenue and capital expenditure".

  1 Special health authorities for the London post-graduate teaching hospitals.

  AIDS
  Mr. Rost
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services (1) whether, in relation to the possible involvement of immunisation procedures in the aetiology of AIDS, there has been any effort to identify SV40 genomes in people with AIDS;

  (2) what assessment he has made, in relation to the possible involvement of immunisation procedures in the aetiology of AIDS, as to whether polio vaccine used in the United Kingdom in the late 1950s or early 1960s was in part contaminated with simian virus 40; and what effects SV 40 is considered to have in its recipients.

  Mr. Newton
  [holding answer 7 July 1988]: I am advised that some of the polio vaccine used in the United Kingdom at that time contained simian virus 40. However, I am also advised that there is no evidence of adverse effects on recipients. In particular, two large studies conducted in the United States have shown no evidence of adverse effects on people who were given polio vaccine containing simian virus 40 in the late 1950s or early 1960s.

  Mr. Rost
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services (1) what is the percentage of people with AIDS who are antibody-positive to HIV;

  (2) what is the percentage of people with AIDS in whom HIV can be isolated.

  Mr. Newton
  [holding answer 7 July 1988]: Virtually all people with AIDS in the United Kingdom are HIV
  138
  number of staff employed in each regional health authority as a total and an estimate of the costs incurred by each regional health authority, broken down into (a) staff salaries and (b) other costs; and if he will give a national total for both (a) and (b).

  Mr. Newton
  [holding answer 6 May 1988]: Such information as is available is shown in the table.

  antibody positive. Techniques for isolating the human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) itself are still experimental and rates of isolation from people with AIDS vary from laboratory to laboratory. Some laboratories claim to have isolated the virus in more than 80 per cent. of patients with AIDS.

  Mr. Rost
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services (1) what is the percentage of people with AIDS in whom Epstein-Barr virus or antibodies to it can be isolated;

  (2) what is the percentage of people with AIDS in whom cytomegalo virus or antibodies to it can be isolated;

  (3) what is the percentage of people with AIDS in whom hepatitis B virus or antibodies to it can be isolated;

  (4) what is the percentage of people with AIDS in whom herpes simplex virus or antibodies to it can be isolated;

  (5) what is the percentage of people with AIDS in whom Epstein-Barr, cytomegalo, or herpes simplex-viral agents has been identified where no evidence of HIV has been found.

  Mr. Newton
  [holding answer 7 July 1988]: This information is not available. Tests for these viruses and for antibodies to the viruses are not routinely performed.

  Mr. Rost
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services how many individuals who have been identified as HIV positive have subsequently been found not to be so.
  139
  Mr. Newton
  [holding answer 7 July 1988]: I understand that in a very few cases, particularly in the early days of testing, individuals were identified as being HIV antibody positive but were subsequently found not to be so when improved assay systems were available.

  Mr. Rost
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services (1) what attempts have been made by his Department to investigate claims, or support research, of the health-enhancing benefits of nutritional support, non-toxic herbal anti-viral treatment and lipid therapy for AIDS/ARC patients;

  (2) whether, in relation to the alternative treatment of people with AIDS/ARC, there has been any trial of the formulation known as AL 721 (active lecithin);

  (3) what attempts have been made by his Department to investigate the holistic approaches to AIDS; and what specific therapies, trials and research have been supported.

  Mr. Newton
  [holding answer 7 July 1988]: We are not aware of any research being funded in these areas. I am advised that in individual cases of ARC and AIDS there may be a need for specific nutritional supplementation, but for the generality of cases there is no evidence that anything other than a good balanced diet is required. For reasons of commercial confidentiality, I am unable to comment on whether any manufacturer has applied for a product licence or clinical trial certificate for lecithin or any other potential treatment for AIDS.

  Mr. Rost
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services what consideration his Department has given to suggestions that some of the symptoms of AIDS could be the result of tertiary or quarternary neurosyphilis, and to the possibility that AIDS is unrecognised, untreated and mistakenly identified syphilis.

  Mr. Newton
  [holding answer 7 July 1988]: I am advised that there is no evidence to support this view although some patients with AIDS may also be infected with syphilis and the clinical manifestations of syphilis may be, in some cases, modified by immunodeficiency associated with HIV infection.

  Mr. Rost
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services what evidence is available to him on any correlation between protein patterns in Waldenstrom's macroglobulinaemia, multiple myeloma and other immune and supposedly genetic disorders, and protein patterns in people with AIDS and ARC, and the association between these and those created by SV40 and PARA visuses in experimental studies.

  Mr. Newton
  [holding answer 7 July 1988]: We are aware of no such evidence.

  District Nurses
  Ms. Harman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services if he will list, for each district health authority in England, the number of people nursed by the district nursing service per 1,000 of the population.

  Mr. Newton
  [holding answer 14 July 1988]: The information for 1986 is given in the table.

  It should be noted that part of the variation in the figures is due to differences in demand due for example to the proportion of elderly people in the population. (Around half of patients seen by district nurses are aged 65
  140
  or over). Also some health authorities use district nurses to provide a service in health centres and on GPs' premises, which of course produces a markedly higher contact rate than is possible if the same staff are used primarily for home visiting.

  Number of persons treated by district nurses during 1986

  Number of persons treated by district nurses Per 1,000 population

  England

  73

  1. Northern

  116

  1. Hartlepool

  131

  2. North Tees

  93

  3. South Tees

  181

  4. East Cumbria

  33

  5. South Cumbria

  80

  6. West Cumbria

  206

  7. Darlington

  104

  8. Durham

  72

  9. North West Durham

  83

  10. South West Durham

  98

  11. Northumberland

  163

  12. Gateshead

  46

  13. Newcastle

  63

  14. North Tyneside

  197

  15. South Tyneside

  36

  16. Sunderland

  195

  2. Yorkshire

  62

  1. Hull

  53

  2. East Yorkshire

  69

  3. Grimsby

  46

  4. Scunthorpe

  63

  5. Northallerton

  21

  6. York

  53

  7. Scarborough

  51

  8. Harrogate

  61

  9. Bradford

  90

  10. Airedale

  122

  11. Calderdale

  68

  12. Huddersfield

  58

  13. Dewsbury

  51

  14. Leeds Western

  27

  15. Leeds Eastern

  45

  16. Wakefield

  76

  17. Pontefract

  108

  3. Trent

  83

  1. North Derbyshire

  100

  2. South Derbyshire

  70

  3. Leicestershire

  76

  4. North Lincolnshire

  92

  5. South Lincolnshire

  83

  6. Bassetlaw

  61

  7. Central Nottinghamshire

  148

  8. Nottingham

  97

  9. Barnsley

  74

  10. Doncaster

  98

  11. Rotherham

  59

  12. Sheffield

  55

  4. East Anglia

  80

  1. Cambridge

  90

  2. Peterborough

  160

  3. West Suffolk

  102

  4. East Suffolk

  46

  5. Norwich

  67

  6. Great Yarmouth

  35

  7. West Norfolk and Wisbech

  39

  8. Huntingdon

  130

  5. North West Thames

  47

  1. North Bedfordshire

  51

  2. South Bedfordshire

  56

  3. North Hertfordshire

  59

  141

  Number of persons treated by district nurses Per 1,000 population

  4. East Hertfordshire

  29

  5. North West Hertfordshire

  24

  6. South West Hertfordshire

  42

  7. Barnet

  58

  8. Harrow

  61

  9. Hillingdon

  30

  10. Hounslow and Spelthorne

  127

  11. Ealing

  30

  12. Brent

  33

  13. Paddington

  26

  14. Riverside

  24

  6. North East Thames

  44

  1. Basildon and Thurrock

  60

  2. Mid Essex

  46

  3. North East Essex

  39

  4. West Essex

  44

  5. Southend

  52

  6. Barking, Havering and Brentwood

  26

  7. Hampstead

  38

  8. Bloomsbury

  79

  9. Islington

  26

  10. City and Hackney

  69

  11. Newham

  12

  12. Tower Hamlels

  51

  13. Enfield

  37

  14. Haringey

  25

  15. Redbridge

  63

  16. Waltham Forest

  51

  7. South East Thames

  74

  1. Brighton

  84

  2, Eastbourne

  148

  3. Hastings

  104

  4, South East Kent

  83

  5. Canterbury and Thanet

  45

  6. Dartford and Gravesham

  68

  7. Maidstone

  59

  8. Medway

  99

  9. Tunbridge Wells

  46

  10. Bexley

  91

  11. Greenwich

  41

  12. Bromley

  49

  13. West Lambeth

  17

  14. Camberwell N.

  110

  15. Lewisham and Southwark

  53

  8. South West Thames

  78

  1. North West Surrey

  34

  2. West Surrey and North East Hants

  61

  3. South West Surrey

  60

  4. Mid Surrey

  51

  5. East Surrey

  197

  6. Chichester

  123

  7. Mid Downs

  51

  8. Worthing

  160

  9. Croydon

  129

  10. Kingston and Esher

  53

  11. Richmond, Roehampton and Twickenham

  25

  12. Wandsworth

  21

  13. Sutton and Merton

  48

  9. Wessex

  55

  1. East Dorset

  42

  2. West Dorset

  27

  3. Portsmouth

  30

  4. S. W. Hants & Southampton

  69

  5. Winchester

  70

  6. Basingstoke

  51

  7. Salisbury

  68

  8. Swindon

  59

  9. West Wilts and Bath

  80

  10. Isle of Wight

  69

  10. Oxford

  125

  142

  Number of persons treated by district nurses Per 1,000 population

  1. East Berkshire

  85

  2. West Berkshire

  110

  3. Aylesbury

  243

  4. Wycombe

  69

  5. Milton Keynes

  132

  6. Kettering

  215

  7. Northampton

  213

  8. Oxford

  59

  11. Southwestern

  52

  1. Bristol and Weston

  42

  2. Frenchay

  25

  3. Southmead

  37

  4. Cornwall & Isle of Scilly

  41

  5. Exeter

  42

  6. North Devon

  35

  7. Plymouth

  51

  8. Torbay

  65

  9. Cheltenham

  40

  10. Gloucester

  65

  11. Somerset

  95

  12. West Midlands

  55

  1. Bromsgrove and Redditch

  37

  2. Herefordshire

  61

  3. Kidderminster

  141

  4. Worcester

  44

  5. Shropshire

  47

  6. Mid Staffordshire

  24

  7. North Staffordshire

  36

  8. South East Staffordshire

  34

  9. Rugby

  35

  10. North Warwickshire

  43

  11. South Warwickshire

  32

  12. Birmingham Central

  51

  13. Birmingham East

  80

  14. Birmingham North

  116

  15. Birmingham South

  57

  16. Birmingham West

  103

  17. Coventry

  39

  18. Dudley

  40

  19. Sandwell

  72

  20. Solihull

  53

  21. Walsall

  106

  22. Wolverhampton

  40

  13. Mersey

  75

  1. Chester

  60

  2. Crewe

  74

  3. Halton

  99

  4. Macclesfield

  116

  5. Warrington

  131

  6. Liverpool

  73

  7. St. Helens and Knowsley

  57

  8. Southport and Formby

  91

  9. South Sefton

  39

  10. Wirral

  58

  14. Northwestern

  100

  1. Lancaster

  103

  2. Blackpool, Wyre and Fylde

  111

  3. Preston

  118

  4. Blackburn, Hyndburn and Ribble Valley

  295

  5. Burnley, Pendle and Rossendale

  154

  6. West Lancashire

  129

  7. Chorley and South Ribble

  69

  8. Bolton

  69

  9. Bury

  187

  10. Manchester North

  46

  11. Manchester Central

  37

  12. Manchester South

  52

  13. Oldham

  70

  14. Rochdale

  82

  15. Salford

  83

  16. Stockport

  69

  143

  Number of persons treated by district nurses Per 1,000 population

  17. Tameside and Glossop

  56

  18. Trafford

  61

  19. Wigan

  76

  Source: DHSS form LHS 27/3

  OPCS

  Benefit

  Date

  Recipients who are women

  Recipients who are lone parents

  Number

  Percentage of all recipients

  Number

  Percentage of all recipients

  Retirement Pension

  September 1987

  6,352,000

  65·3

  n/a

  n/a

  Widows' Benefits

  September 1987

  367,000

  100

  54,000

  14·7

  Maternity Allowance

  March 1987

  332,000

  100

  n/a

  n/a

  Invalidity Benefit

  April 1987

  214,000

  22·1

  n/a

  n/a

  Sickness Benefit

  April 1987

  26,000

  23·6

  n/a

  n/a

  Unemployment Benefit

  November 1987

  250,000

  370·

  n/a

  n/a

  Supplementary Benefit

  May 1987

  2,537,000

  51·8

  664,000

  13·6

  Family Income Supplement

  April 1987

  91,000

  41

  92,000

  42

  Housing Benefit

  Autumn 1985

  n/a

  n/a

  1630,000

  18·8

  n/a—not available.

  1 subject to revision.

  Perinatal Mortality
  Mr. Fearn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services if he will publish the perinatal mortality rate for each year since 1968 by region.

  Perinatal mortality rates by hospital regions in England and Wales 1968–1973

  Year

  Hospital region

  1978

  1969

  1970

  1971

  1972

  1973

  England and Wales

  25

  23

  23

  22

  22

  21

  Newcastle

  25

  25

  24

  23

  23

  22

  Leeds

  26

  25

  25

  22

  24

  23

  Sheffield

  25

  24

  24

  23

  23

  21

  East Anglian

  21

  20

  21

  20

  19

  17

  North West Metropolitan

  24

  21

  22

  20

  19

  19

  North East Metropolitan

  24

  22

  22

  22

  21

  20

  South East Metropolitan

  23

  21

  21

  20

  19

  20

  South West Metropolitan

  23

  21

  22

  20

  20

  19

  Wessex

  23

  21

  21

  21

  19

  21

  Oxford

  21

  19

  20

  20

  18

  17

  South Western

  22

  21

  21

  20

  20

  19

  Welsh

  28

  27

  25

  24

  22

  21

  Birmingham

  25

  24

  26

  24

  24

  24

  Manchester

  28

  27

  27

  25

  25

  23

  Liverpool

  28

  27

  27

  26

  24

  25

  Perinatal mortality rates1 by Regional Health Authorities in England and Wales 1974–1987

  Regional Health Authority

  1974

  1975

  1976

  1977

  1978

  1979

  1980

  1981

  1982

  1983

  1984

  1985

  1986

  21987

  England and Wales

  20·4

  19·3

  17·7

  17·0

  15·5

  14·7

  13·3

  11·8

  11·3

  10·4

  10·1

  9·8

  9·6

  8·9

  England

  20·3

  19·3

  17·6

  16·9

  15·4

  14·6

  13·4

  11·7

  11·2

  10·3

  10·0

  9·8

  9·5

  8·9

  Northern

  22·5

  19·9

  19·1

  19·1

  17·6

  16·4

  15·0

  13·2

  11·8

  10·8

  11·0

  9·8

  10·1

  8·5

  Yorkshire

  22·2

  21·6

  18·4

  18·1

  16·3

  16·6

  14·9

  13·9

  12·5

  11·8

  11·6

  10·6

  10·3

  9·5

  Trent

  21·0

  18·6

  19·2

  16·7

  15·3

  14·6

  13·0

  11·2

  11·2

  10·7

  9·8

  9·5

  10·2

  9·3

  East Anglian

  16·6

  15·8

  13·9

  13·0

  13·3

  13·0

  11·3

  10·2

  10·4

  9·3

  8·9

  9·8

  7·7

  7·9

  North West Thames

  17·5

  18·4

  16·9

  14·8

  14·1

  13·2

  11·0

  10·7

  9·7

  8·6

  9·0

  9·1

  8·6

  8·6

  North East Thames

  19·2

  18·0

  16·6

  16·1

  15·1

  13·5

  13·8

  11·0

  11·6

  9·9

  9·7

  9·3

  9·6

  9·4

  South East Thames

  19·5

  19·2

  17·4

  16·8

  15·0

  14·1

  12·9

  12·0

  10·0

  10·2

  10·5

  9·5

  8·5

  8·5

  South West Thames

  18·1

  18·0

  14·8

  14·6

  13·5

  13·3

  10·8

  10·9

  10·6

  9·4

  8·6

  9·3

  8·2

  7·5

  Wessex

  17·8

  17·1

  15·1

  15·5

  13·2

  12·8

  11·7

  9·7

  10·0

  9·4

  8·6

  9·2

  8·8

  8·9

  Oxford

  15·7

  15·6

  13·8

  15·0

  13·4

  11·6

  12·6

  9·4

  9·9

  8·9

  8·7

  8·5

  8·9

  8·0

  South Western

  19·0

  16·9

  16·1

  16·2

  15·1

  13·3

  12·6

  11·5

  9·1

  9·4

  9·3

  9·1

  9·5

  7·5

  West Midlands

  22·5

  21·8

  21·1

  19·4

  17·2

  16·8

  15·1

  12·9

  13·8

  12·3

  12·3

  11·7

  11·0

  9·9

  Mersey

  23·6

  22·1

  19·5

  18·8

  15·2

  15·6

  13·7

  12·4

  10·9

  9·3

  9·0

  10·2

  9·2

  9·0

  North Western

  23·1

  21·9

  18·7

  18·5

  18·1

  15·9

  15·3

  12·5

  12·5

  11·3

  10·3

  9·9

  10·4

  9·6

  Wales

  21·2

  19·7

  19·0

  17·9

  16·8

  15·6

  12·8

  14·1

  11·1

  11·3

  10·5

  10·2

  10·3

  9·2

  Note: Perinatal mortality = stillbirths + deaths 0–6 days.

  1 Rate per 1,000 total births.

  2 Provisional.

  Benefits
  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services if he will publish figures showing, for each class A national insurance benefit and for each means-tested social security benefit, the numbers and proportions of claimants who are(a) women and (b) lone parents, giving the most recent figures.

  Mr. Portillo
  [holding answer 18 July 1988]: The figures, in so far as they are available, are as follows:

  Mrs. Currie
  [holding answer 22 July 1988]: The information is shown in the tables. Health authority areas were changed in 1974: the data prior to 1974 are not threefore directly comparable with those for 1974 onwards.

TRANSPORT

  Crash Barriers
  Mr. Bellingham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport whether he has any plans to measure the effectiveness of the current design of crash barriers on Britain's roads; and whether he has any plans to improve that design.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  The effectiveness of existing safety fence designs has been measured in research and monitoring actual performance for over 20 years.

  New designs of safety fences have been developed. The case for their deployment is now being assessed.

  Mr. Bellingham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport (1) if he will make a statement on the effectiveness of central reservation crash barriers on Britain's dual carriageways;

  (2) what recent steps his Department has taken to improve the effectiveness of crash barriers on roads.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  Existing safety fencing is designed to contain a 1·5 tonne vehicle travelling at 70 mph striking the fence at an angle of 20 degrees, and to redirect it safely. Extensive research and long experience have consistently shown that it performs at least as well as, and sometimes better than, this.

  Inspection and maintenance regimes are in force during the installation and throughout the useful life of each safety fence. They will shortly be supplemented with mandatory quality assurance standards for contractors engaged in supplying and erecting fences. Such measures ensure that fences perform, and continue to perform, as effectively as they are designed to do.

  The Department has developed a range of higher containment safety fences. We are currently looking at the costs and benefits of deploying them. The Department continues to keep all aspects of safety fence performance under close scrutiny. We will introduce further improvements whenever they can be justified.

  Whatever their effectiveness, safety fences are not a substitute for safe driving.

  Felixstowe Dock (Deposit of Material)
  Mr. Andrew F. Bennett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if, in respect of the application he has received, from the Felixstowe Dock and Railway Company, for consents under section 7 of the Felixstowe Dock and Railway Act 1988, he will state (i) the date of the application, (ii) its nature, and (iii) whether it was accompanied by appropriate information as required under article 5 of European Community Directive 85/337 on environmental assessment.

  Mr. David Mitchell
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State received the company's application for consent to the first stage of reclamation for the extension of the port on 3 June 1988. This gave particulars about the matters set out in section 7(2) of the Act. He gave his consent on 12 July. The directive on environmental assessment does not apply to projects which have been specifically approved by Parliament.

  Management in Government
  Mr. Fry
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what progress he has made towards the implementation in 146
  his Department of the recommendations in the efficiency unit's report entitled "Improving Management in Government: The Next Steps"; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Channon
  I am establishing the vehicle inspectorate as an executive agency with effect from 1 August. Copies of the policy and resources framework document, setting out the inspectorate's aims, objectives and responsibilities, have been laid in the libraries in this House and in the other place.

  I am appointing Mr. Ron Oliver, a qualified mechanical engineer, who is the present head of the vehicle inspectorate, to be its first chief executive. I am delegating clear responsibility for day-to-day management of the inspectorate to him and his management team. Under the policy and resources framework, local management will have enhanced responsibilities in the areas of finance, contracts and personnel management and more scope to develop new business initiatives. It intends to introduce performance incentives and other necessary changes designed to encourage staff to increase efficiency to make more productive use of public assets and thereby improve services to the public. I expect that the scope of local management freedom and responsibilities will grow over time and I shall be ready to consider modifications to this policy and resources framework to reflect and encourage that process. In particular, we shall be reviewing the inspectorate's financial regime, in order to find ways of mirroring as closely as possible the financial disciplines of a private sector business.

  Publication of the framework document itself represents an enhancement of accountability to Parliament and the inspectorate will in future publish an annual business plan, as well as its annual report and accounts. In order to ensure that letters to hon. Members are dealt with as quickly and effectively as possible, I have asked hon. Members to write direct to the chief executive in the first instance on questions which concern the inspectorate's handling of constituency cases concerning operational matters. I and my hon. Friend the Minister for Roads and Traffic will continue to deal with questions of policy or with any cases where hon. Members are dissatisfied with the inspectorate's reply.

  The inspectorate is already working to specific unit cost targets agreed with the Treasury for 1988–89. I have now set the chief executive a further target to improve the cost efficiency of the inspectorate's main activities by 3·7 per cent. over the two-year period from 1 April 1989 to 31 March 1991. These savings will come both from specific efficiency measures and from the development of new initiatives and performance incentives within the executive agency framework.

  I am pleased that the vehicle inspectorate is the first executive agency to be established, and I wish the chief executive and his staff every success in achieving their objectives and targets.

  My Department continues to work towards establish-ing the driver and vehicle licensing directorate as an executive agency. In addition, I have commissioned a feasibility study of establishing the transport and road research laboratory as an executive agency and have asked my Department to develop executive agency proposals for the driver testing and training organisation (which conducts driving tests) and the vehicle and component approvals division (which carries out type approval tests).

  West London (Schemes)
  Mr. Soley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport Lwhich houses would need to be demolished under each of the different schemes described in the Husband report on the west London environmental improvement route; and how many blight notices(a) have been accepted and (b) are under consideration.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  At this early stage I cannot add to the estimates set out in Husband's report.

  To date 11 blight notices have been accepted and a further one is under consideration.

  Mr. Soley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if any of the options proposed in stage 2 of the west London assessment study will be subject to the European Economic Community directive on environmental impact assessment.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  The European Community's directive on environmental impact assessment applies to the assessment of the environmental effects of those public and private projects which are likely to have significant effects on the environment. Any projects which are taken forward for more detailed consideration from stage 2 of the west London assessment study and which are likely to have significant effects on the environment will be subject to the directive. The assessment of options within stage 2 of the study will include consideration of their environmental effects.

  Mr. Soley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport which houses along the proposed western environmental improvement route are affected by the safeguarding line.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  The scope of a safeguarding line is defined by the Town and Country Planning General Development Order 1977. Planning applications relating to properties within 67 m of the safeguarded line must be referred to the Secretary of State for direction. Only a small proportion of these properties is likely to be affected by the proposals for WEIR.

  Mr. Soley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what is the latest timetable for the western environmental improvement route from timing of studies to completion of proposed project; what public consultations are proposed and at what points; and what public information exercises are envisaged.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  The study into a western environmental improvement route started in 1984. The project is unlikely to be completed before the late 1990s. We hope to hold public consultations around the end of the year. I shall make an announcement nearer the time. We shall also be consulting widely on the west London assessment study next year.

  Mr. Soley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if a public inquiry will be held should his Department decide to build the western environmental improvement route.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  The statutory highway procedures include provision for public inquiries to be held if there are unresolved objections.

  Mr. Soley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what assessment he has made of the implications of the 148
  re-routing proposals in the west London assessment study for the local provision of public bus services; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  It has been made clear that the preliminary set of options, including those with bus service improvements, will be assessed in detail by the consultants during the rest of stage 2. Their conclusions will be considered when stage 2 has been completed.

  Mr. Soley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what are the options being considered in the west London assessment study as part of the western environmental improvement route.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  All the preliminary options examined in the west London assessment study are described in the working paper produced by Sir William Halcrow and Partners. Copies have been placed in the Library.

  Mr. Soley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what proportion of the western environmental improvement route is being considered for a tunnel; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  Most of the proposed route is in cutting. The consultants have been asked to explore the practicablity, costs and benefits of covering sections of the route.

  Mr. Soley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many residents of the Kensington constituency, selected by whom, are responsible for the comments in the public consultation document (Husband's study; technical note 1, App. 1B, group discussions with residents, vol. 1B, Holland Park/north Kensington); if there are plans for further consultations; what plans there are for ensuring that the public receives further information; how many copies of the full Husband's report have been printed; and who received these copies.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  The appendix referred to was not produced by Husband and Co. It is one of the technical appendices produced by Sir William Halcrow and Partners as part of their report on problems in stage 1 of the west London assessment study. Full details of the coverage of public consultation and the methodology adopted are set out in technical note 1, copies of which have been sent to borough councis and placed in the main libraries in the study area.

  Husband and Co. published in September 1987 a report on the appraisal of options for the proposed western environmental improvement route, of which 200 copies were printed. Copies were distributed as follows:

  Local public libraries in the area

  Local authorities in the area

  Members of Parliament in the area

  House of Commons and House of Lords Libraries

  Executive authorities such as BR and LUL Ltd

  Select Committee on Transport

  London Research Library

  Consultants for the West London Assessment study.

  About 60 copies have been sold to individuals or groups interested in the scheme.

  Additionally, 1,500 copies of a summary were produced and have been distributed to individuals and groups interested in the scheme.

  I have said there will be further consultation with the public about the scheme.

  Disabled People
  Mr. Tom Clarke
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what steps he intends to take to improve transport services for disabled persons.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  The Department of Transport has a firm and continuing commitment to a programme of research, technical and policy development, education and information dissemination to improve transport services for people with disabilities. In all these areas we work in close association with the Disabled Persons Transport Advisory Committee.

  New Roads (Housing Proximities)
  Mr. Soley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what figure his Department uses as the minimum desirable distance between houses and a new major road; and what guidance or regulations have been issued on this subject.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  In planning roads the distance from houses is determined on the basis of careful assessment of all the relevant safety and environmental factors.

  In practice, people object if a road comes within half a mile and apply for permission to build up to the highway boundary.

  Channel Tunnel
  Mr. David Porter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what studies his Department has carried out into likely road usage in Suffolk and Norfolk after the opening of the Channel tunnel; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  The effects on road usage in Suffolk and Norfolk after the opening of the Channel tunnel are not likely to be significant.

  London (Traffic Congestion)
  Mr. French
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what representations he has received from motoring organisations about ways of reducing traffic congestion in London; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  None recently. We work to reduce traffic congestion in London by progressing the trunk road programme, supporting the boroughs with their transport policies and programmes, promoting better traffic management, encouraging better parking controls and working with BR and LRT to improve the quality of their services.

  Mr. French
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will commission a study into the provision of underground tunnels in London to reduce traffic congestion.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  I have no plans to commission a special study. In addition to the measures already in hand to reduce traffic congestion in London, consultants for the London assessment studies are developing a range of options for relieving problems in the four study areas. Some of these options could include proposals for tunnels to relieve traffic congestion.

  East London River Crossing
  Mr. Cartwright
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what representations he has received about the incorporation of a Docklands light railway extension to Thamesmead into the proposed east London river crossing scheme; and if he is considering such a proposal.

  Mr. Channon
  Such proposals were put forward during and after the public inquiries into the east London river crossing scheme. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment and I are considering all these proposals. We hope to announce our decisions very shortly.

  M1 Traffic Flows
  Mr. Marlow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what is the current average hourly flow at junction 12 of the M1 in both directions; and what estimate he has of these flows immediately subsequent to the completion of the M40.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  The latest information available, for 1987, shows an average hourly two-way flow immediately north of junction 12 of 4,040 vehicles.

  After completion of the M40 extension, expected in 1992, it is estimated that the hourly flow will be in the range 3,730 to 3,910 vehicles. This represents a reduction of between 540 and 630 vehicles per hour.

  A6 Disley Bypass
  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport under what circumstances he will(a) publish or (b) make available to Derbyshire county council the reports by the landscape advisory committee and the report of the consulting engineers on the A6 Disley bypass.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  In accordance with the policy set out in the "Report on the Review of Highway Inquiry Procedures 1978" (Cmnd. 7133), the Department will make the reports available for inspection by objectors to any orders published under the Highways Acts.

  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a statement on his recent meeting with Derbyshire county council to discuss the A6 Disley bypass.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  It explained its reservations about the "brown route"—in particular its opinion of effects on the landscape; the severance problems and the difficulties for Swizzells Matlow in New Mills; and the likely high cost of the scheme due to unusual geological features in the area. I explained the environmental reasons for putting forward the brown route. I undertook to consider all the county council's comments and suggestions for alternatives before making decisions on whether a scheme should be added to the roads programme and on choice of route. I explained that if the scheme were added to the programme the standard procedure would be for all objections and representations to be aired before an independent inspector, who would make recommendations to my right hon. Friends the Secretaries of State for Transport and for the Environment.

  P and O Ferries
  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport (1) if he will make a statement of the condition of the P andO ferry European Clearway;

  (2) if he will make a statement on the recent fire on board the ferry European Clearway.

  Mr. David Mitchell
  One of my Department's marine surveyors is investigating the circumstances surrounding the fire on the European Clearway and he will be completing his report as soon as possible.

  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will arrange for an independent inquiry into operational safety aboard P and O cross-Channel ferries.

  Mr. David Mitchell
  No. My marine surveyors are monitoring safety standards on all cross-Channel ferries.

  North Sea Oil and Gas (Safety)
  Mr. Meacher
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many safety inspectors were employed by his Department on the inspection of North sea oil and gas installations and related equipment in each year since 1965.
  152
  Mr. David Mitchell
  The figures are not available in the form requested. However, since 1976 an average of around 12 to 15 surveyor years per annum have been devoted to the survey of fire-fighting equipment and life-saving appliances on those installations.

  M4 (Traffic)
  Dr. Glyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what estimate he has made of the increased traffic on the M4 as a result of the authorisation to use Heathrow for charter flights.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State does not expect road traffic volumes to be significantly affected. The concession allowing the use of Heathrow airport by whole plane charter services is designed to apply only in exceptional circumstances, where holidaymakers would otherwise face unacceptable delay. The concession will end on 30 September. This relaxation in our air traffic distribution policy for the London airports will offer a useful measure of flexibility in dealing with the difficult travel circumstances such as we have seen over recent weekends.

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

Piper Alpha Platform Explosion
Lord Molloy Lord Molloy asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they propose to take any immediate action in the light of what is already known about the Piper Alpha oil rig disaster, in advance of the report of the inquiry, in order to prevent a repetition of such a tragedy.
Viscount Davidson: My Lords, it is the Government's intention that any early lessons that can be learnt from the accident should be extracted and immediate guidance issued to operators of North Sea installations. To enable this, the Health and Safety Commission and the Secretary of State for Energy have set up a technical investigation into the cause of the accident.
Lord MolloyMy Lords, I thank the noble Viscount for that reply which contained a degree of encouragement. However, is the noble Viscount not aware that the threat of serious explosion can be contained? For example, experts have pointed out that on the Brent Alpha Platform, 200 miles further north and 24 hours earlier, a similar accident took place but because of the efficiency of the system, which had been properly maintained, the explosion was not nearly such a disaster as that which occurred on Piper Alpha. Are these matters being taken seriously? Is that the example that the noble Viscount had in mind when replying to my initial Question?
Viscount DavidsonMy Lords, of course everything is taken extremely seriously. That is why a public inquiry is being set up and also a departmental investigation.
Lord PestonMy Lords, do the Government know whether those who own and operate these oil rigs have themselves engaged in a series of safety checks in the past few weeks to make doubly sure, at least for the moment, that everything is as well as it can be?
Viscount Davidson: Yes, my Lords, they have.
Lord Molloy:My Lords, is the noble Viscount also prepared to accept that the siting of the crews' living accommodation on the Alpha Piper platform, whoever brought that about, was also a disaster? According to the experts the accommodation should never have been placedthere. Does the noble Viscount therefore agree that constant testing of the central control system is necessary and that nothing trivial should be overlooked to prevent any such disaster in the future? I thank the Minister for his replies and the Government for their endeavours.
Viscount Davidson: My Lords, I think that it is wrong for me to say anything at this stage or for anyone in this House to prejudge what may come out of the inquiry.

Overseas Visitors
2.40 p.m.
Baroness Elliot of Harwood Baroness Elliot of Harwood asked Her Majesty's Government:
How many overseas visitors came to the United Kingdom in the first quarter of 1988.
The Earl of Dundee: My Lords, provisional estimates suggest that 2,880,000 visitors came to the United Kingdom in the first quarter of 1988.
Baroness Elliot of Harwood: My Lords, I congratulate the Government on their successful policy on tourism. Can the Minister say whether the increase in visitors is reflected in an increase in their spending to the benefit of our traders?
The Earl of DundeeMy Lords, the noble Baroness is, of course, right in the implication in her

3
supplementary question. It does not necessarily follow that with a large number of visitors there will be a commensurate level of spending. So far there has not been a noticeable discrepancy between the two, but it goes without saying that it is important to maintain a good spread of markets to minimise dependence on any one sector. The BTA is working to develop new markets as well as to maintain existing ones. It is certainly vital to offer value for money in all sectors of the tourism industry.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, can the noble Earl inform the House how many people left the United Kingdom as visitors to overseas countries in the first quarter of 1988?
The Earl of DundeeMy Lords, I do not have that information. Visitors from Western Europe to the United Kingdom are 60 per cent. of the total. As to the proportions of United Kingdom citizens visiting Western Europe and Western European citizens coming to this country, about two-thirds of our people are going to Western Europe and one-third of Western Europeans are coming here.
Lord Gainford: My Lords, has the noble Earl any information about the reasons for tourists coming to this country? Is it the result of successful advertising abroad in favour of Britain or the recommendation of travellers who have been here and who are telling their friends?
The Earl of Dundee: My Lords, I imagine it is a combination of all such factors. However, it has probably nothing to do with our weather.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: My Lords, what special steps are the Government taking to improve the efficiency of the tourist industry in this country? Is the Minister aware that the service industries undoubtedly play a vital part in entertaining overseas visitors? Is he further aware that in many of the service industries, not least the catering industry, wages and conditions are very bad? Can the Minister tell the House what special steps the Government are taking to make visitors to this country even more welcome and satisfied in the future?
The Earl of Dundee: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord. It is extremely important not to be complacent. Even if the figures are good, as they are at present, we must strive to obtain better results. I can assure the noble Lord that both the BTA and the ETB are doing everything to improve marketing and to make the proposition of visiting this country more attractive.
Lord Thorneycroft: My Lords, will my noble friend give unequivocal congratulations to the hotel and catering industry that works so hard and which does a magnificent job in attracting tourists to this country?
The Earl of Dundee: My Lords, yes indeed. I am happy to give the figures. There are 180,000 people
4
self-employed in the hotel and catering sector which is a growth of 24 per cent. between 1981 and 1987 or 6 per cent. from 1985 to 1987.
Lord Nugent of Guildford: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that the University of Surrey makes a valuable contribution to this business by being the only faculty in the country which gives a degree in catering?
The Earl of Dundee: My Lords, I am glad to hear that from my noble friend. I was not aware of it. I hope that many universities and their faculties follow this example in due course.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, the noble Earl mentioned a figure of 180,000 people employed in the hotel and catering industry. Can he tell the House how many of them are overseas visitors?
The Earl of Dundee: My Lords, I shall have to write to the noble Lord on that point.
Lord Elwyn-Jones: My Lords, surely overseas visitors come here for the weather, do they not?
The Earl of Dundee: My Lords, I have my own views about the relative attractions of the weather north of the Border where I live. I cannot speak for Wales, of course.

BBC Portrayal of Police Activities
2.45 p.m.
Lord Nugent of Guildford Lord Nugent of Guildford asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they are satisfied that the BBC is observing its formal obligations in current programmes portraying police activities.
The Minister of State, Home Office (Earl Ferrers): My Lords, the BBC is responsible for the content of the programmes which it transmits. It is not a matter in which the Government intervenes.
Lord Nugent of Guildford: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that not very informative Answer. Is he aware that in an episode of "EastEnders" shown during family viewing time at 7.30 in the evening of 12th July there was a scene with a girl who had been raped reporting at a police station which breached all standards of good broadcasting? Is he further aware that the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis has already complained to the BBC that the portrayal of the police officer in these very sensitive circumstances as rough and unsympathetic was quite damaging to all that the police have tried to do in recent years? Is my noble friend aware that a complaint was made by Mrs. Whitehouse of the National Viewers' and Listeners Association about the fact that showing a scene of sex and violence during family viewing time is very offensive? Will he please expedite the setting up of the Broadcasting Standards Council to deal with such offences.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I am sorry that my noble friend did not find my Answer very informative. If I may say so with modesty, I thought it was peculiarly informative. I understand his concern. As a Minister with responsibility for the police, I have sympathy with those who find it a great pity when producers portray them in an inadequate or insensitive manner. This matter has given a great deal of trouble over the past two years and efforts have been made to make the reporting of such offences less traumatic than it used to be.
I believe some people may find the portrayal of this kind of material not to be very good entertainment. That is a matter of opinion; it is not a matter upon which the Government have the right to intervene..
I assure my noble friend that the Broadcasting Standards Council has been set up and it already has a chairman; a deputy chairman is likely to be appointed in the near future. We hope that the council will be operational before the end of the year. I also confirm to him that the BBC has strict guidelines which it gives to producers, stating what should and should not be portrayed. Nine o'clock is regarded as the hour before which particular care should be taken.
Baroness Birk: My Lords, is it not the case that in the following episode of this programme two days later the rape victim was persuaded to go to the police station? As was shown on television, she received a very sympathetic response from a policewoman. This fact was praised by the real police. Is the Minister further aware that in an interview with the Daily Mail on 14th July, Commander Thelma Wagstaff, chairman of the Fourth Metropolitan Police Working Party on Rape and Sexual Offences, said:
"it is clear that the male police officer in question had not had special training in dealing with rape victims…we still have a very long way to go"?
Does he agree that it is very important that, if a rape victim is put off by an initial brush with the police, she should at least be encouraged to go to the police station to have the opportunity of the sympathetic response that occurred in this case?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, the noble Baroness is quite right. If a person has such a traumatic experience she should be encouraged to go to the police because there are special places set up to deal with such cases. Of course not everyone follows all the cases serial by serial, and very often the damage which is done by one episode is not necessarily rectified by a later episode. That is very much a matter for the producers.
Lord Mellish: My Lords, is the Minister aware that some of us share the view expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Nugent, that television companies portray the police either as buffoons or villains? In the view of many noble Lords, they are neither, but ordinary men and women trying to do a decent and a very tough job. Is it not about time that the Government told the BBC and ITV that enough is enough?
Earl FerrersMy Lords, I have a great deal of sympathy with what the noble Lord has said about
6
the police being ordinary people trying to do a difficult job. However, it is not for the Government to tell the BBC that enough is enough. It is for the noble Lord to write to the chairman of the BBC to tell him that enough is enough.
The Earl of Halsbury: My Lords, if the noble Earl were sitting at home with his family when a battered woman arrived to complain that she had been raped, would he not tell the children to leave the room while he dealt with the matter? Has the BBC a right to introduce battered women who have been raped into family viewing hours? Is it not time that the chairman of the governors of the BBC, whoever he is, let it be quite clearly understood by all his staff and producers that the next person who causes the BBC to make a public apology will be fired without benefit of anything at all, that the second time it happens his boss will be fired, and so on up the line until one has got rid of the chairman of the governors of the BBC? Thus are men governed.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, that is a fascinating catalogue of firing which extends the imagination to understand. However, I do not propose to reply to my noble friend's question as to what I should feel like if such an eventuality happened to me, though I realise why the noble Earl asked it. All I can tell him is that, in a private capacity, I have informed the chairman of the BBC that I would find it convenient if he so conducted the orders of his corporation that I was not subjected to answering Questions of this nature which it is not my responsibility to answer.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: My Lords, is the noble Earl aware that the BBC produces many helpful programmes such as "Crimewatch" arid many others which are of immense advantage to the police service? Does he not agree that we live in a liberal democracy, which means that the government of the day do not give instructions to the BBC?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Harris, is absolutely right, and that is why I have no intention of giving any instructions to the governors of the BBC. The very point he makes serves to underline the vital role producers have in producing the kind of material which is acceptable. On the principle that people are affected by what they see, producers have a large responsibility in that regard. The BBC gives guidelines to producers which say that scenes of violence may well make a programme unsuitable for an early placing. So too may sex, bad language, blasphemy or scenes of great distress.
Lord Jenkins of Putney: My Lords, is the noble Earl aware that, while many of us would agree that due care should be taken, and normally is taken, about programmes broadcast in family viewing time, nevertheless it is right and proper that the bad should be shown in order to show what can be done about it? One cannot illustrate the good without first showing what it is one wishes to cure, as it were. Is he not further aware that if all the propositions put to him from around the House were put into effect by the BBC, we should have nothing but mindless pap?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins, is entirely entitled to hold that point of view. I fancy that not everyone would agree with him, but that is why I have no intention of giving any instructions to the BBC. If I did, I would attract a holocaust from your Lordships
Lord Taylor of Blackburn: My Lords, I share the great concern of the noble Lord, Lord Nugent, on this matter, but surely to put down Questions of this nature when the Government have set up an independent Broadcasting Standards Council is not the right thing to do. The right thing to do is to send them to the council and not to discuss them in this House. The Government will not forward these complaints when a body has been set up to deal with them.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, the Broadcasting Standards Council has been set up and will act as a focus for public concern about the portrayal of violence or sex in all forms of broadcasting. It will monitor programmes, receive and examine complaints and undertake research. In the past I have drawn to the attention of the chairman of the BBC your Lordships' views, and I dare say that it would be as well if on this occasion I were to draw his attention to the whole range of views which have been expressed.
Lord Nugent of Guildford: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that it is evident from the amount of interest on all sides of the House that this Question was justified? Is he further aware that I am not opposed to BBC programmes generally? I enjoy them very much. It is perfectly possible to show films about the police which are not offensive. We could not look for a better example than those provided in the past by the noble Lord, Lord Willis. "Dixon of Dock Green", a marvellous drama which we all enjoyed, offended nobody.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I quite understand what my noble friend says. The part that concerns a number of people—the subject matter of this showing—is not on the whole regarded as what one might call good entertainment stuff. However, that is the responsibility of the BBC. It has to decide whether or not to broadcast it.
Lord Annan: My Lords, does the noble Earl agree that the constitutional position is that the broadcasting authorities are responsible to Parliament, and that it is therefore very much in order that in either House of Parliament Questions of this kind should be raised? That having been said, it is entirely right also, as the noble Earl has been saying, that he can only say that he will draw the attention of the authorities to what has been said in Parliament.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Annan, raises a fine point. The broadcasting authorities are responsible for broadcasting. They are not just responsible to Parliament for broadcasting, they are responsible throughout the United Kingdom.

The Glorious Revolution Exhibition
2.56 p.m.
Lord Sudeley asked Lord Sudeley asked Her Majesty's Government:
How many people are visiting the Parliament and the Glorious Revolution exhibition at the Banqueting House, Whitehall, and what steps, if any, are being taken to promote awareness of this exhibition amongst the public.
Lord Beaverbrook: My Lords, for the period 1st July to 19th July 1988 there were 6,150 visitors to the Parliament and the Glorious Revolution Exhibition at the Banqueting House, Whitehall. Various promotional activities have been undertaken to publicise the exhibition. These include direct mail campaigns, posters, distribution of information packs, press photographs, press advertising, a radio feature and facilities provided for national and regional television companies.
Lord Sudeley: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that Answer. Does he think that the front of the building should be marked with broad banners which could be seen from the other side of Whitehall on Horse Guards Parade? Secondly, bearing in mind that previous exhibitions organised by the COI were important occasions and have been provided with men dressed in costumes suitable to the period, does the Minister not think that one of these people should be stationed on the other side of the road, on Horse Guards Parade, on a rota system to distribute leaflets about the exhibition opposite?
Lord Beaverbrook: My Lords, with regard to my noble friend's first point, I understand that additional banners on the facade of the Banqueting House are being arranged. As to having a member of staff dressed in costume on the other side of the road, that is another matter. However, I shall draw my noble friend's remarks to the attention of those responsible for the running of the exhibition.
The Earl of Longford: My Lords, have Ministers had time to read an admirable article in the Sunday Times yesterday written by a brilliant academic writer, Mr. Clarke, in which the claims made on behalf of the so-called Glorious Revolution are revealed as a total nonsense?
Lord Beaverbrook: My Lords, I have seen the article but I suspect that it has not put many people off yet. After all, Sunday is rather recent history.
Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone: My Lords, while expressing great admiration for my colleague at All Souls, is my noble friend aware that academic lawyers never make their money by saying that the House of Lords is right in any particular judgment and that academic historians never make their money by saying that the established truth is true?
Lord Beaverbrook: My Lords, I am sure that my noble and learned friend has an important point.
Lord Annan: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that Mr. Clarke has written a book in which the Old Pretender is referred to throughout as James III?
Lord Beaverbrook: My Lords, the noble Lord has made a good point, but perhaps we can continue with the history lessons outside the Chamber.
Baroness Strange: My Lords, is my noble friend the Minister aware that I have purchased several of the attractive Glorious Revolution tee shirts for some of my younger kinsmen? Further, would it not promote the exhibition if some of your Lordships were to wear these garments?
Lord Beaverbrook: My Lords, perhaps my noble friend would like to distribute further samples.

Business
3 p.m.
Lord Denham: My Lords, it may be for the convenience of the House if I announce that the Committee stage of the Housing Bill will be adjourned at approximately 7 p.m. for approximately one hour. During the adjournment six Black Country Development Corporation (Vesting of Land) orders and seven Tyne and Wear Development Corporation (Vesting of Land) orders will be taken.

River Humber (Burcom Outfall) Bill [H.L.]
Read a third time, and passed, and sent to the Commons.
London Regional Transport Bill
Read a second time, and committed to a Select Committee.

County of South Glamorgan (Taff Crossing). Bill
Read a third time.
Clause 15 [Power to stop up streets temporarily]:
The Chairman of Committees (Lord Aberdare)The Chairman of Committees (Lord Aberdare)
moved the amendment:
Page 10, line 38, leave out ("interference").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move an amendment to Clause 15. This is purely a drafting amendment.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Aberdare: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill do now pass.
Moved, That the Bill do now pass.—(Lord Aberdare.)
On Question. Bill passed. and returned to the Commons with amendments.

Road Traffic Bill [H.L.]
3.3 p.m.
The Lord Chancellor (Lord Mackay of Clashfern): My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a third time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a third time.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
Lord Elwyn-Jones: My Lords, I wonder whether it is necessary to have three road traffic Bills and whether it would not be possible to combine them all into just one Bill?
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, the fact that three Bills were prepared is due to the need to have Bills that are efficient and comprehensible. The view was taken that the Road Traffic Bill should deal with those matters which were not concerned with offences, and that traffic offences should be consolidated separately. It was decided to have a third Bill which would deal with consequential provisions which would gradually disappear from importance. We would then be left with two Bills which would continue to have importance and have distinct subject matters..
As regards the necessity of having three Motions on the Order Paper, I should be most happy to dispense with that procedure, but the Standing Orders of the House require that we deal with each of them separately.
On Question, Bill read a third time.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill do now pass.
Moved, That the Bill do now pass.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Bill passed, and sent to the Commons.

Road Traffic Offenders Bill [H.L.]
Read a third time, and passed, and sent to the Commons.
Road Traffic. (Consequential Provisions) Bill [H.L.]
Read a third time, and passed, and sent to the Commons.

Education Reform Bill
3.4 p.m.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Education and Science (Baroness Hooper): My Lords, I beg to move that the Commons amendments be now considered.
Moved, That the Commons amendments be now considered.—(Baroness Hooper.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
CONSIDERATION OF COMMONS AMENDMENTS.
TO CERTAIN LORDS AMENDMENTS
[References are to HL Bill 71 as first printed for the Lords.]

LORDS AMENDMENT
1 Clause 50, page 44, line 48, at end insert
("(7) Subject to subsection (8) below, it shall be the duty of the governing body of any school which is eligible for grant-maintained status, at the request of any parent of a registered pupil at the school, to make available to the parent for inspection (at all reasonable times and free of charge) at the school, and to supply the parent with a copy of, a list containing the name and address of every person who is known to the governing body to be such a parent if the request is made—

(a) in connection with any proposal that a ballot should be held in accordance with section 51 of this Act; or

(b) where the governing body are under a duty by virtue of this section to secure that such a ballot is held, in connection with the holding of the ballot.

(8) A governing body shall not disclose to a parent under subsection (7) above the name and address of any person who has requested the governing body in writing not to disclose that information under that subsection; and accordingly the name and address of that person shall be excluded from the list there mentioned.
(9) A governing body who in pursuance of subsection (7) above supply copies of the list there mentioned may charge such fee as they think fit (not exceeding the cost of supply) in respect of each copy so supplied.
2 The Commons agreed to the above amendment with the following amendment.
Line 12, after ("section") insert ("or section 51(7A) of this Act." ).
The Lord Privy Seal (Lord Belstead): My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 2 as an amendment to Lords Amendment No. 1. At the same time I should like to speak to Amendments Nos. 3 to 13 as printed on the Marshalled List..
The procedures by which a school may apply to my right honourable friend the Secretary of State to become grant-maintained are well-trodden. But let me briefly reiterate them. First, the governors must resolve to hold a secret postal ballot of all the parents on the question and consult the local education authority, and any trustees that the school may have, and confirm that resolution at a second governors' meeting held not less than 28 days later..
Alternatively, a significant number of parents may put forward a petition requiring the governors to hold a ballot. If the outcome of the ballot shows that parents favour grant-maintained status, the governors must draw up a formal application and submit it to the Secretary of State. It will be open to all those with a legitimate interest in the school—for example, parents and staff, the local education authority, the trustees, if any, and parents of children in feeder primary schools—to make comments or objections. My right honourable friend will take these into account and will decide the application on its merits..
There has been considerable debate about the proposed method for testing parental opinion. The Government's view is that a simple majority of those
12
voting in a ballot should determine the outcome of that ballot. But, at the Committee stage your Lordships agreed to an amendment, moved by the right reverned Prelate the Bishop of London, which introduced a much higher hurdle; namely, that a majority of all those eligible to vote should support an application for grant-maintained status before the application could go forward for consideration. The difficulty is that that amendment would in effect enfranchise the apathetic. Abstainers would have equal weight with opponents in blocking the prospect of change. All this would happen in a ballot which does not itself decide the issue but only provides the trigger for the case to be presented to the Secretary of State..
However, having said that, I fully accept that noble Lords did express—on the amendment moved by the right reverend Prelate—concern about the ballot procedures, though not necessarily being opposed to the concept of grant-maintained status in itself. Indeed, your Lordships voted overwhelmingly on 12th May in favour of the principle of it. However, I think that some of your Lordships were concerned about means rather than ends..
So it was that the right reverend Prelate in moving the amendment suggested that as the Bill stood it remained possible for any small group to press certain parents to exercise their vote to ensure the necessary majority in a minority vote. I think it is fair to say that the right reverend Prelate, and indeed some of your Lordships, made very clear the desire to prevent small groups of parents from hustling a ballot through before the main body of parents had really woken up to what was going on and had formed a view on the matter, either for or against..
I recognise the concern of many noble Lords on that point. The amendments I now put forward provide for a voting procedure which ensures that if half the parents do not show by their votes that they are fully aware that a ballot is being held, then there must be a second ballot. Therefore, Amendment No. 9 provides for a dual ballot arrangement..
Where a ballot is held and more than half the registered parents vote, the result will be determined by a simple majority of those voting. But if fewer than half the parents vote a second ballot will have to be held within 14 days of the result of the first one being declared. Ballot papers will again be sent to all the parents, this time with a statement explaining why the second ballot is necessary and reminding them of what they are being asked to decide. The result of the second ballot will again be determined by a simple majority of those voting; but this time it would be conclusive. I hope that your Lordships will agree that the amendment will provide a clear and decisive safeguard against a small group of committed parents being able, so to speak, to hijack a school..
The other amendments that we have tabled clarify a number of practical issues upon which noble Lords have expressed interest. In particular, Amendment No. 9 makes it clear that the list of parents held on a school's admissions register will form the basis for the electoral roll needed for any ballot. The amendment emphasises the crucial point that it is for the governing body to make a determination in any case

13
where a question is raised, and only where a question is raised, about a person's claim to be a parent. In the vast majority of cases no such question is likely..
For some time now governors have been in exactly that position in respect of those eligible to vote in the election of parent governors for their school. I am not aware that that has caused difficulties. The Government's guidance will remind school governors that the education Acts define a parent as including a guardian and any person who has actual custody of the child, and that just occasionally there may be circumstances where more than two people have parental rights in respect of a particular child.
I hope that your Lordships will agree that the amendments respond to the concerns expressed in your Lordships' House on the original amendment moved by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of London by making it possible for a small group of parents to hurry a school into an application for grant-maintained status without the main body of parents fully appreciating the consequences; but at the same time the amendments maintain the principle that those who wish to exercise their right to vote are entitled to have a decisive influence on the outcome. I commend the amendment to your Lordships.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 2 to the Lords Amendment No. 1.—(Lord Belstead.)
Baroness David: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord the Leader of the House for his explanation. We had expected that the Government would come up with some sort of compromise at this stage, but we are not at all satisfied with the compromise that has been offered. It is true that there is a minor improvement, but it is not enough to be satisfactory. We hoped that something rather more generous would have been offered. It still remains that if 50 per cent. of the parents vote on the first ballot, 25 per cent. plus one parent could determine this extremely important issue.
On the second ballot there could be just two or three parents voting—two for and one against. That is what we were objecting to in the Bill as it was originally drafted. On reading Hansard of another place for Monday last I noticed that there were a number of Conservative Members there who were not entirely happy with the solution offered. Sir Hugh Rossi and Sir Charles Morrison pointed out that 25 per cent. plus one was a small percentage of parents to make this extremely important change in a school's constitution.
Sir Hugh Rossi pointed out that while the Secretary of State was at the Department of the Environment, before a building society's constitution could be changed there was a requirement that 75 per cent. of the members had to vote. Surely a change in the constitution of a school is just as important. I should have thought that it was more important. Our amendment asks for 50 per cent. plus one of those eligible to vote..
I must also remind the House about the Housing Bill now going through Parliament. A private landlord cannot take over a council estate if a
14
majority of those eligible vote against. That is more than 50 per cent. We asked for just over 50 per cent..
Last Monday, Dr. Keith Hampson tried to get the Secretary of State to say that it was unlikely that he would accept a decision taken by a simple majority of a 50 per cent. turn-out in the first ballot, but he would not commit himself. The Secretary of State said that he was confident that there would be a big turn-out. If so, why not accept our amendment?.
I suspect that the only reason is that the Secretary of State is desperate to get grant-maintained schools on the go. He continually made the point that simple elections are often determined on minority votes. He quoted local councillors, but this is a different situation. Local councillors can be put out of their seats after three or four years. The decision about a school opting to become grant-maintained is irreversible. We turned down a suggestion that schools should be able to opt in after a period of years. This decision is therefore for good. That is an important consideration..
It is unsatisfactory that there is still no proper definition of a parent. My noble friend Lord Morton may say a word or two more about that. It can be unfair. There could be four or five parents per child. On 12th May in this place (at col. 1326 of Hansard) the noble Lord, Lord Trefgarne, admitted that there may be circumstances where a child has more than two parents. We preferred our plan, where for one child there was one parental vote. Unfortunately that amendment was not accepted. The unsatisfactory system remains. Therefore there is all the more reason to ask for a straight majority of those eligible to vote before a school can become grant-maintained.
3.15 p.m.
The Lord Bishop of London: My Lords, I appreciate the way in which the Government have moved in this matter. However, not all the points made by the supporters of my original amendment have been met as a result of the action taken in another place. The question for me is, have enough points been met to make it unwise for your Lordships' House to continue to press the matter? I shall identify the main points on which there has been movement..
A small but significant point is that we now know that as the ballots will be organised by the Electoral Reform Society not only will the numbers of those who vote be published but also the number of ballot papers distributed. That fact was not made clear to us before. I believe that it is significant. 'We had hoped that there would be a requirement for such information to be sent to the Secretary of State. We believe that that point is met. I trust that the Minister will be able to confirm that what I have just said is correct..
Secondly, we have been told by the Secretary of State that the extent of the turn-out will be a material factor in the consideration of any application for grant-maintained status and is bound to weigh heavily with the holder of his office. That again is an assurance we have not previously had. It may be not as many of us had wished, but it is more than we had before. It certainly contributed to a change of mind by some Members of another place..

15
Thirdly, and most important, we have had the introduction of the second ballot. That will go a long way towards countering the possible apathy and ignorance in certain groups of parents which I earlier identified as a source of potential danger. The invitation to any small group of extremists to exercise undue influence will not be as open as I believe it could have been under the original proposal. It will alert parents to such a situation by requiring a second ballot. I am therefore inclined to urge your Lordships not to defy the wishes of the other place, with all the constitutional difficulties that that would entail..
However, there are two points upon which I seek further assurances from the Minister. The first relates to timing. The point was raised in another place. There was some talk of a specific time during which the decision would have to be made by the Secretary of State. He will have to decide a number of tricky cases. By encouraging the rejection of your Lordships' amendments he has increased the number and trickiness of the decisions he will have to make. Will he be able to handle all the applications sufficiently speedily to avoid the "planning blight" which will come over a school whose application is in the pending tray? I hope we can have some assurance on that..
Secondly I hope that we can be assured that the Secretary of State will not, "through the publication of guidance"—that is a quotation from Hansard—redraw the franchise in ways which have not been the subject of parliamentary scrutiny. His remark to his right honourable friend Mr. Timothy Raison in last week's debate in another place suggested that he might have some such intention in mind. I hope we can be told this afternoon that that is not the case, because I believe to change the franchise without parliamentary debate would be very unfortunate..
With those observations I can only say that I think the wisest course is to accept these amendments, which go a considerable way to meeting the points I had in mind when I proposed my amendment earlier.
Baroness Seear: My Lords, we on these Benches are not in favour of this compromise which the Government have put forward. The proposal about the ballot still makes it possible that it could get through on 25 per cent. plus one. That, for what is an irreversible decision, we think is nowhere near enough. If the Government had been prepared to make the decision reversible this might be a different matter. But we are forced to believe—and this is confirmed by the report coming from the Centre for Policy Studies this morning—that the Government are determined to have grant-maintained schools and to undermine the position of local authorities in relation to education. That being so, we are extremely unwilling to accept this compromise. After all, the second ballot could be done on a very small number of people indeed. So I am afraid that we cannot accept the advice put forward by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of London.
The Earl of Halsbury:My Lords, I support this amendment for one very good reason. It is that in a
16
certain sense I thought of it myself. I know I did because it was my birthday and I gave it as a sort of birthday present in reverse to the noble Baroness for her to think about it. She has perpended on it and come up with this compromise.
All design is a compromise. In a situation like this we cannot have a set of rules which pleases everybody. I hope that the House will follow the lead given by our noble Leader and accept this amendment.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, I hope that the House will, as the noble Earl has just said, follow the advice of the right reverend Prelate and accept this amendment. The Government have obviously made a considerable effort to meet the views which were expressed in your Lordships' House. By introducing a system of two ballots I think they have met the very real danger which was mentioned at an earlier stage of a small group of zealots pushing a motion through in the absence of the great majority of parents..
Where there are two ballots, as there will be under this amendment, it would be a singularly apathetic parent who took part in a vote on neither of the ballots. One could perhaps say that parents whose views were so unenthusiastically held that they would not bother to vote on two occasions perhaps do not deserve to have their views taken over-seriously. I hope therefore that your Lordships will accept this amendment..
There is the further point which I think has not been fully stressed today that neither of these ballots is final. If they both go, or if the second one goes, in favour of opting out, the matter still goes to the Secretary of State, with whom the final decision lies. I do not think your Lordships can envisage any Secretary of State who would take a decision on a matter of this sort without looking carefully at the ballot figures. If there really were a very small vote, albeit favourable, it seems at least possible that a sensible Secretary of State would send the matter back. I hope and believe that that is so..
I very much agree with the view that has just been expressed and I hope in general that the Secretary of State will act quickly when a proposal is put up to him. Otherwise, as one noble Lord has said, a kind of planning blight can descend on the school. We have had a great deal of discussion on the matter. It has gone to and fro between your Lordships' House and another place. The Government have come forward with a good compromise acceptable to the right reverend Prelate who himself made the original proposal. I hope that your Lordships will go along with it.
Earl Baldwin of Bewdley: My Lords, when the Secretary of State argues that proposals for a school opting out are among the most important events in the history of that school and that it would be absurd to imagine that they could go through under cover of darkness, so to speak, without everyone locally being aware of the issues, I think he is right. I do not believe that this is a major problem. Those who still have worries on that score will of course be reassured by what was put forward last week in another place..

17
To me the new procedures still miss the main points of concern in this whole business and in this I regretfully differ from the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of London..
The first point is that a school which is hoping to launch out on its own needs, I should have thought, to demonstrate a strong degree of parental commitment if it is to be a success. It is not that one is assuming, in opposing the Government's voting arrangements, that those who abstain on a low poll will necessarily be against opting out. It is that one is looking for a lot more than apathy in laying the foundations for a new type of school whose raison d'être is supposed to be the expressed wishes of concerned parents—all those parents who, we were told in the run up to this Bill, were longing to get their hands on local schools..
Under this new dual ballot system it will still be possible, as has been said, for a very small minority of parents to change the status of the school. Of course, as the Secretary of State stressed again last week, he can use his judgment in such a case to disallow the proposal. But it would surely be more satisfactory on all counts if there were provided for in this Bill the sort of majority that made it unnecessary for a Secretary of State in Whitehall to have to form a view—however well advised—as to what the local people really meant..
In passing, I do not believe the argument about "fancy franchises" is worth a moment's consideration. The Secretary of State has voted for them himself in the past. In some instances, such as voting people into posts, a simple majority of those voting is appropriate. In others, such as changing the ground rules of institutions, a stiffer hurdle is quite usual. The choice of ballot is matched to the case in hand. If people are thinking of creating a new type of school, it seems to me pretty obvious that the more demanding approach is the more suitable one in terms both of common practice and of common sense. In this context 50 per cent. of the electorate is not an unreasonable target..
The second major point of concern which the new proposals do little to allay is the irrevocable nature of the act of opting out. The noble Baroness, Lady David, has already drawn attention to this. If the amendments which were put forward in your Lordships' House at an earlier stage, allowing a school to opt hack in at some stage in the future, had been agreed to, I myself should not have been nearly so concerned to spend time and energy getting the voting arrangements right in the first place. I still cannot understand why parents should have the choice of loosing the ties with the local education authority but should not have the choice of picking them up again if they decide it is right for their school to do so. I do not believe that the motives for this lack of symmetry can be educational..
However, since this is the situation with which we are faced, it is doubly important to make sure that the decision to leave the local orbit and to remain outside that orbit forever is taken with the kind of community backing which will augur well for the period beyond the first few years when the initial flush of enthusiasm may have faded and the grass may
18
possibly not look quite so green. That I believe is one of the reasons why your Lordships voted to improve this part of the Bill and why I hope noble Lords may do so again.
Lord Goodman: My Lords, when I came here this afternoon I did so in the obviously mistaken belief that I had suggested this amendment. However, it is quite clear that there are other rivals to that claim! I may say I am only too happy to recognise it as a Cross-Bench amendment..
Perhaps I may say—and for fear of being torn to pieces by the Opposition I have noticed carefully where the exit is—that when I made the suggestion it was not because I had any great enthusiasm for opting out. I entirely agree with the noble Lord, Lord Adrian, that the capacity to opt out should be associated with the capacity to opt in again. However, that is another question. I made the suggestion because I claim—often mistakenly—that I am a realist.
I recognise that with the enormous majority of beardless youths in the other place and with the vast assembly of people here who may for all we know at this moment be sheltering where Guy Fawkes was some while ago, the prospect of retaining this amendment was unrealistic. That being so, the suggestion seemed to me at least a considerable improvement on the notion that a school could opt out on a single ballot. A number of the things that have been said are terribly true. One that was untrue was the analogy with the Companies Act or with building societies, which stipulate a 70 per cent. majority. If every shareholder had one vote, no resolution could ever be passed at a company meeting. It is only because there are a vast number of votes in single hands that a resolution is passed..
This provision seems to me to be an improvement. Occasionally when I make a suggestion I find that it is not adopted in toto, which is extremely humiliating. But my objection concerns the 14 days. That appears to me to be much too short a period in which to allow parents to recognise the significance of what has taken place. I ask the Government to reconsider that timing. It seems to me to be wholly unreasonable. In fact it defeats the benefit of this amendment and, to some extent, although I would riot suggest any absence of bona fides, it suggests that adequate consideration has not been given to providing it as a safeguard..
I started by saying that I was no great believer in opting out. I must go further and make a thoroughly agnostic assertion. I am no great believer in parent power in schools or educational institutions. Having spent 10 years as the master of an Oxford college I must say that, rather disappointingly, I cannot remember a single curricular suggestion that ever came from a parent. That may be quite irrelevant to this situation, but if we are depending on parents to make successful schools, we may still find that we are thoroughly disappointed in that regard..
As regards the realities of the situation, it would be unrealistic not to accept this amendment with, I hope, reconsideration by the Government of the time factor involved. I urge the Government to consider

19
whether 14 days does not give a spurious illusion of safety which is not there at all.
3.30 p.m.
Baroness Young: My Lords, when we debated this matter very fully on 12th May I was one Member of the House who supported the Government in their original proposals. But it was quite clear on that occasion, and certainly on rereading the debate, that there was a great deal of concern about the matter in your Lordships' House. I think that that concern was echoed in another place when this matter went back for consideration on that occasion..
Therefore, I greatly welcome what the noble Lord the Leader of the House said this afternoon in moving this government amendment. I am very pleased indeed that the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of London has accepted it. The noble Lord, Lord Goodman, and the noble Earl, Lord Halsbury, said that they were also prepared to accept it. I think it is a worthwhile compromise. Although I realise that the noble Lord, Lord Goodman, thinks that 14 days is a very short period of time, nevertheless, if one considers the reality of what could happen under these circumstances, one realises that there would be a very great deal of interest and publicity while all this was going on..
We need to recall what my noble friend Lord Belstead said in moving this amendment about the various processes which have to be gone through before a school opts out. It does not just rest on the parents' ballot. Today, with the interest of the press in local authority activities and school activities, there would be a great deal about such a matter in the press, quite apart from interest among the parents themselves. I have no doubt that a great many leaflets would circulate about it. So there would, quite properly, be a great deal of interest in this important matter..
I suspect that between the two ballots, if the second ballot proved to be necessary, there would be a great deal of publicity and interest. I find it extremely difficult to believe that people would be unaware of what was going on and unable to take a decision about it..
One must go back to look at the principles under which a school might consider opting out. I find it difficult to believe that a school would take this decision—particularly as your Lordships have drawn attention to the fact that, having decided to opt out, a school cannot opt back in again—without considering the matter very carefully and without being very concerned about the reasons which led it to disagree with the local education authority and made it wish to opt out..
I believe that this is a very fair amendment. I am very grateful to my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for bringing it forward to your Lordships' House. The amendment meets the very real concerns that were expressed on another occasion and I hope that your Lordships will support it.
Lord Morton of Shuna: My Lords, I suggest that the amendment that was passed by your Lordships is a better amendment to the Bill as it was originally than the amendment we now have to consider. The difficulties are fairly great. Before any issue of opting out is considered, one must remember that the register of parents tends only to consist of the name of a person with whom the school could get in touch if anything happened to a particular child..
As one sees from the publication Education of 22nd July, it appears that even now various headmasters are not aware of the duty of keeping a register, and do not have one. Therefore, there is a difficulty as regards how accurate a register is anyway..
Then one has the problem of what constitutes a parent. We have discussed this matter in your Lordships' House at my instigation on several occasions. Who is to be recognised as the parent of a child when that child's real parents are divorced and the child is living with one step-parent and one natural parent or is staying with a grandmother or with grandparents at the time? The governing body under Amendment No. 9 on the Marshalled List apparently has the duty to determine who is a parent. Amendment No. 9 inserts a new Section 10A. That section states that a person eligible to vote must be:
"known to the governing body to be a parent of a registered pupil at the school".
One must ask oneself what the words "known to" mean as regards a governing body. The new section further states that a person eligible to vote must be
"named as a parent of such a pupil"..
So, if I go along to register my child and I put him down on the list, how will the governing body know that I am the parent, especially when, according to the 1944 Act, a parent includes a guardian and every person who has the actual custody of the child or young person. How will the governing body—not the head teacher or the class teacher—know whether I am a parent? What is meant by the word "know"?.
Having overcome the difficulty of finding out who the parents on the register are to be during that fortnight, the governors have to make a decision. Apparently there is no possibility in the Bill of any appeal to anybody else. Do the Government intend that there should be no judicial review? If there is to be judicial review, what happens to the timetable? Who decides the matter? I can assure the Government that some parents will disagree with governing bodies as regards whether or not they should be on the register. I am informed that there already is at least one litigation over the election of parent governors. There may well be difficulties and litigation over the right or denial of a right to be on the register..
I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Goodman, that the 14 days is an impossible period of time. If one takes a place such as Barrow-in-Furness where the main works has a holiday of a fortnight and where the schools have the same holiday and one considers the scheme, one will see that the governors or the group of parents who are anxious to have such a ballot can decide to have their requirement delivered just before the start of that holiday period, thus denying a large majority of parents any chance of

21
challenging or asserting their right to receive a ballot paper.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, perhaps the noble Lord will allow me to intervene. Surely those are exactly the circumstances in which the Secretary of State would refuse the application.
Lord Morton of Shuna: My Lords, that may well be so, depending on who the Secretary of State is. But it completely destroys parental choice and makes it a question of the choice of the Secretary of State. A school in one part of the country may have a certain level of complaints that parents are deprived of a chance to get on the register; a different situation could arise the following month with a school elsewhere. If the Secretary of State allows one and not the other, a pattern of decisions will develop, that is not consistent. We shall be left with a situation in which the Secretary of State choses which local education authority he likes, which he does not like, which type of school he lets out and which he does not let out. That is a denial of parental choice..
I suggest that the timetable is totally unworkable. There is no discretion to vary the dates and the time requirements because of holidays. That is an obvious and serious deficiency in the Bill as it stands. If a governing body receives a request, a ballot must be held within three months. The governing body cannot hold a ballot until 14 days have elapsed. Therefore, the ballot has a period of roughly 10 weeks. There could easily be a situation where, if there must be a second ballot, it will fall at Christmas or Easter, or in the summer holidays. That would be inappropriate because the ballot should be held in a period when the school is in session so that people will know about it..
For example, a school goes on holiday for seven or eight weeks in the summer—as most schools do— beginning on 22nd July. It may get a request for a ballot on 15th June. It must therefore allow a fortnight to settle the register. That takes until the beginning of July. There will then be a period for typing of envelopes and sending out of documents. No period is set for the time a postal ballot will take. However, anything under a week or 10 days would surely be wrong. Ballot papers will be returned just before the school goes on holiday and a second ballot will take place. It is totally inappropriate to hold such a ballot if all the parents are on holiday..
That type of situation is almost bound to occur every now and again. It is a matter which has not been thought through. Therefore, a straightforward return to a provision establishing that more than 50 per cent. of parents wish to opt out would be the appropriate response. I suggest that the Commons amendments be disagreed with.
Lord Ritchie of Dundee: My Lords, I support what has been said the noble Lords, Lord Morton of Shuna and Lord Goodman, concerning the matter of 14 days. The process is a drastic one. For a school to opt out of local authority control is to undermine the principles of the 1944 Act. It is also irreversible. In those circumstances, it should be a difficult decision and not one which it is too easy for parents to make..
22
An added difficulty is that the Government have exposed themselves to the charge that they use parents' views only when it suits them. That was painfully evident in the London parents' ballot. There was an overwhelming vote on the part of London parents to retain the ILEA until suitable replacements could be found. That ballot was ignored by the Government. In the circumstances, I should have thought that it would be in the Government's own interest to show that they are concerned with the opinions and wishes of parents. They should provide at the very least that a reasonable amount of time is allowed between the proposed ballots.
3.45 p.m.
Lord Belstead: My Lords, the debate on the amendments follows an amendment moved by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of London at the Committee stage of the Bill when concern was expressed about balloting procedures for testing whether parents wish to apply for grant-maintained status for their school under the Bill. The debate which we are having concerns the government response which I put forward at the beginning of our debate to the concerns expressed by your Lordships as regards the dual balloting arrangement set out in the amendments. I am grateful to the right reverend Prelate for his support, which was qualified by questions he asked. I am also grateful to the noble Earl, Lord Halsbury, and the noble Lord, Lord Goodman, who vied in claiming the parenthood of this set of amendments..
The danger to which several of your Lordships understandably drew attention was that a small but well organised group of parents might rush through a ballot before the main body of parents had fully grasped the importance of what was at stake. The amendments which I ask your Lordships to agree today provide that there must be a second ballot if fewer than half the parents voted on the first ballot. I believe that that is a powerful safeguard. It means that no small group of parents will be able to preempt the debate. I am particularly grateful to my noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter for saying so, roundly and clearly..
The difficulty I face is that noble Lords of the official Opposition and of the Social and Liberal Democrats have not welcomed the amendments. I am surprised at their opposition to the principle of a simple majority vote by secret postal ballot. Unlike examples of other ballots which I believe the noble Baroness, Lady Seear, gave, this ballot will not finally decide the issue. The point was also made by the noble Baroness, Lady David. However, as my noble friend Baroness Young rightly said, the ballot simply decides whether an application ought to come forward from the governors for public scrutiny, including statutory rights of objection and final decision by the Secretary of State. The extra safeguard built into the amendments is that in triggering the procedure for an application for grant-maintained status, it will be virtually impossible for a small minority of parents to prevail against the majority..

23
The right reverend Prelate asked for more information about ballots. I should like to give an assurance that the Electoral Reform Society will give my right honourable friend details of the results of every ballot. The Secretary of State therefore will be able to see the strength of parental support. My right honourable friend will decide all applications for grant-maintained status as quickly as possible..
Turning to a point on which there was, in a sense, conflicting advice, the right reverend Prelate was concerned that the dual balloting arrangements would build in delay and the noble Lord, Lord Goodman, suggested that the period between ballots should be longer. I believe that the time period of 14 days is the best way of assuring that there is time to conduct a second ballot properly. After all, that is the period of time which is used as an interim in the French presidential elections. At the same time, it ensures that the momentum of the issue will not be lost. The parents will receive a statement with the second ballot paper explaining what it is all about..
Finally, perhaps I may just say to the right reverend Prelate in response to his third and very important question that there is no question of the franchise being changed once the Bill has become law. Guidance will only explain more fully what the legislation requires..
I think that the only other matter which I have to deal with is the series of questions put to me by the noble Lord, Lord Morton of Shuna. He was worried about what a parent is. I am sorry that he is worried about that because it has been enshrined in Section 114 of the 1944 Education Act, and I reported to your Lordships exactly what that section said.
Lord Morton of Shuna: Perhaps, the noble Lord will allow me to intervene. Section 114 does not say what a parent is; it says what a parent includes.
Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone: A legal quibble, my Lords.
Lord Belstead: My Lords, perhaps I may just refer to the effect of Section 114. The definition of parent includes a guardian and every person who has the actual custody of the child. In some cases a child may therefore have more than two parents it is true. But governors will not have to examine parents' credentials. Only if a question is raised as to a parent's eligibility to vote will the governing body have to reach a decision. It will be able to look—despite the difficulty it is giving to the noble Lord—to Section 114. That section, incidentally, has been guiding governing bodies in deciding who can vote for parent governors of schools for a few years now since some previous legislation by the present Government was passed through both Houses..
Perhaps I may also say that if a parent believes that the governors have acted unreasonably in determining eligibility to vote, complaint can be made to the Secretary of State under Section 68 of the 1944 Education Act. If I may say so, I think that that is enough about the details.
Lord Peston: My Lords, it is nearly enough. However, one is rather intrigued by Amendment No. 9 in which the words,
"known to the governing body".
appear. For some of us it is very difficult to understand the connotation of "known" in this context. Does it have a specific meaning? Does it have an operational significance in the sense that the governing body can say "We do not know you to be a parent and therefore you cannot vote"?
Lord Belstead: My Lords, it means in effect that the burden of proof in such cases will be on the person claiming to be a parent. It will certainly not be necessary for the governors to go looking for parents, as some noble Lords have suggested. The amendments also provide that parents should have 14 days in which to check that they are on the list once it has been formally decided that a ballot should be held..
I should like to add just one last point. I think that it is fair to say that the opposition to this amendment for a dual balloting arrangement—which will ensure that half the parents of children in a school have to show by their votes that they are aware that a ballot is taking place. otherwise the whole thing is null and void—comes from noble Lords in the Official Opposition and on the Social and Liberal Democrat Benches on wider grounds, becase they do not want grant-maintained schools. We live in a free country and noble Lords opposite have every right to take that view. But I have every right to finish by reminding your Lordships what it is that we are talking about..
This debate is about only one stage in the very searching procedures by which a school can seek to become grant-maintained. No school will be forced to become grant-maintained. Those which apply will be those which believe that they can do a better job outside local authority control. Parents, governors and children will obtain no special privileges if their school becomes grant-maintained. However, they will have a much greater say in the way that the school is run. For the first time local authorities will have to compete for the approval of both parents and governors in the knowledge that, if they fail to satisfy, those parents and governors may choose to take their custom elsewhere. That is a freedom which I believe will be good for the education system..
These amendments will finally pave the way with absolute fairness for parents to have that freedom. I commend the Motion to your Lordships.
Lord Dormand of Easington: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down I wonder whether he will deal in a little more detail with what his noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter told your Lordships was a very important point. We are not just talking about two ballots; we are talking about a third stage, which the Leader of the House has mentioned—namely the decision (which we presume is final) of the Secretary of State. I am sure that some of us would consider that that is a mere debating point and that the Government have made their view absolutely clear by saying that they really want a majority of any kind, however small, even though a second ballot is

25
held. Would the Leader of the House care to give an estimate of the number of decisions which the Secretary of State is likely to reverse?
Lord Belstead: My Lords, my answer to that question is a resounding negative. However, let me give a rather more satisfactory reply to the noble Lord. A point was raised by the noble Lord, Lord Morton, about what would happen if a difficult time was selected for the balloting procedure, for instance with Christmas coming. On that point, governors will need to plan ahead. The guidance which will be sent out by my right honourable friend's department will ensure that governors have to plan ahead. The provisions of this Bill allow him to require a fresh ballot if the Secretary of State is not satisfied that reasonable procedures have been followed. So in meeting, the point which the noble Lord has put to me, let us always remember that at the end of the day there is the decision of the Secretary of State and it has to be reasonable.
Lord Goodman: My Lords, before the Minister sits down, I wonder whether I may ask him a question which might help some of us in relation to the ultimate outcome. Will he be good enough to tell us what is the magic of 14 days and why the same magic is not to be found in 21 days or 28 days?
Lord Belstead: My Lords, a period of time had to be selected. Quite obviously there is a need to maintain momentum so that people remember what it is all about. There has already been the run-up to the first ballot. Leaving another fortnight until the second ballot appeared to the Government to be a reasonable period of time to put to another place—and I put it now to your Lordships' House—and yet a period of time in which the issues would not be forgotten.
3.58 p.m.
On Question, Whether the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 2 to the Lords Amendment No. 1.
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 173; Not-Contents, 85.

DIVISION NO. 1

CONTENTS

Alexander of Tunis, E.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Allerton, L.

Broxbourne, L.

Arran, E.

Burton of Coventry, B.

Auckland, L.

Butterworth, L.

Aylestone, L.

Caccia, L.

Barber, L.

Caithness, E.

Beaverbrook, L.

Camden, M.

Belhaven and Stenton, L.

Cameron of Lochbroom, L.

Beloff, L.

Campbell of Alloway, L.

Belstead, L.

Carnegy of Lour, B.

Benson, L.

Carnock, L.

Bessborough, E.

Carr of Hadley, L.

Blatch, B.

Cathcart, E.

Blyth, L.

Cawley, L.

Borthwick, L.

Chelmer, L.

Boyd-Carpenter, L.

Colnbrook, L.

Brabazon of Tara, L.

Constantine of Stanmore, L.

Braye, B.

Cottesloe, L.

Brightman, L.

Crathorne, L.

Broadbridge, L.

Croham, L.

26

Cullen of Ashbourne, L.

Munster, E.

Dacre of Glanton, L.

Murton of Lindisfarne, L.

Davidson, V. [Teller.]

Nelson, E.

De Freyne, L.

Newall, L.

Denham, L. [Teller.]

Nugent of Guildford, L.

Diamond, L.

O'Brien of Lothbury, L.

Dundee, E.

Orkney, E.

Eccles, V.

Oxfuird, V.

Eden of Winton, L.

Pender, L.

Effingham, E.

Penrhyn, L.

Elibank, L.

Perth, E.

Ellenborough, L.

Peyton of Yeovil, L.

Elles, B.

Plummer of St. Marylebone, L.

Eliot of Harwood, B.

Elliott of Morpeth, L.

Porritt, L.

Faithfull, B.

Radnor, E.

Flowers, L.

Rankeillour, L.

Fortescue, E.

Reay, L.

Fraser of Kilmorack, L.

Reigate, L.

Gainford, L.

Renton, L.

Glenarthur, L.

Ridley, V.

Goschen, V.

Rodney, L.

Gray of Contin, L.

Romney, L.

Greenhill of Harrow, L.

Rugby, L.

Gridley, L.

Sainsbury, L.

Grimthorpe, L.

St. Davids, V.

Hailsham of Saint Marylebone, L.

St. Germans, E.

St. John of Fawsley, L.

Halsbury, E.

Saltoun of Abernethy, Ly.

Hardinge of Penshurst, L.

Sanderson of Bowden, L.

Harmar-Nicholls, L.

Seebohm, L.

Havers, L.

Shannon, E.

Henley, L.

Shaughnessy, L.

Hesketh, L.

Sheffield, Bp.

Hives, L.

Skelmersdale, L.

Hood, V.

Somers, L.

Hooper, B.

Soper, L.

Hunter of Newington, L.

Southborough, L.

Hylton-Foster, B.

Stanley of Alderley, L.

Ilchester, E.

Stevens of Ludgate, L.

Johnston of Rockport, L.

Strathspey, L.

Joseph, L.

Sudeley, L.

Kaberry of Adel, L.

Swinfen, L.

Killearn, L.

Terrington, L.

Kimball, L.

Teviot, L.

Kinnaird, L.

Thomas of Gwydir, L.

Lauderdale, E.

Thomas of Swynnerton, L.

Layton, L.

Thorneycroft, L.

London, Bp.

Thurlow, L

Long, V.

Torrington, V.

Lucas of Chilworth, L.

Trafford, L

Luke, L.

Trefgarne, L.

Lurgan, L.

Trumpington, B.

Lyell, L.

Ullswater, V.

Mackay of Clashfern, L.

Waldegrave, E.

Macleod of Borve, B.

Walston, L.

Mancroft, L.

Watkinson, V.

Manton, L.

Westbury, L.

Margadale, L.

Whitelaw, V.

Marley, L.

Willis, L.

Marshall of Leeds, L.

Winterbottom, L.

Masham of Ilton, B.

Wise, L.

Merrivale, L.

Wolfson, L.

Mersey, V.

Wyatt of Weeford, L.

Middleton, L.

Wynford, L.

Monk Bretton, L.

Young, B.

Morris, L.

Young of Graffham, L.

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Ampthill, L.

Carmichael of Kelvingrove, L.

Ardwick, L.

Carter, L.

Baldwin of Bewdley, E.

Cledwyn of Penrhos, L.

Banks, L.

Cocks of Hartcliffe, L.

Birk, B.

Darcy (de Knayth), B.

Blackstone, B.

David, B.

Bonham-Carter, L.

Dean of Beswick, L.

Boston of Faversham, L.

Donaldson of Kingsbridge, L.

Bottomley, L.

Dormand of Easington, L.

Briginshaw, L.

Elwyn-Jones, L.

Bruce of Donington, L.

Ennals, L.

27

Ewart-Biggs, B.

Morton of Shuna, L.

Falkender, B.

Nicol, B.

Falkland, V.

Ogmore, L.

Fisher of Rednal, B.

Oram, L.

Foot, L.

Paget of Northampton, L.

Gallacher, L.

Peston, L.

Galpern, L.

Pitt of Hampstead, L.

Graham of Edmonton, L.

Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L. [Teller.]

Grey, E.

Grimond, L.

Rathcreedan, L.

Harris of Greenwich, L.

Ritchie of Dundee, L. [Teller.]

Henniker, L.

Rochester, L.

Houghton of Sowerby, L.

Ross of Newport, L.

Hunt, L.

Russell, E.

Jacques, L.

Seear, B.

Jeger, B.

Serota, B.

Jenkins of Hillhead, L.

Shackleton, L.

Jenkins of Putney, L.

Shepherd, L.

John-Mackie, L.

Stallard, L.

Kearton, L.

Stewart of Fulham, L.

Kilbracken, L

Stoddart of Swindon, L.

Kinloss, Ly.

Strabolgi, L.

Leatherland, L.

Swann, L.

Listowel, E.

Taylor of Blackburn, L.

Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe

Taylor of Gryfe, L.

Lloyd of Hampstead, L.

Underhill, L.

Longford, E.

Wallace of Coslany, L.

McIntosh of Haringey, L.

White, B.

McNair, L.

Williams of Elvel, L.

Mais, L.

Winchilsea and Nottingham, E.

Mayhew, L.

Molloy, L.

Young of Dartington, L.

Monson, L.

Resolved in the affirmative, and Motion agreed to accordingly.
4.7 p.m.

LORDS AMENDMENT
3 Clause 51, page 46, line 4, at end insert—
("(5A) Where the governing body of any school are under a duty by virtue of section 50 of this Act to secure that a ballot is held in accordance with this section they shall make available to every person employed to work at the school for inspection (at all reasonable times and free of charge) at the school a document containing the information required by subsections (3)(a) and (5) above to be given to parents of registered pupils at the school.").
The Commons agreed to the above amendment with the following amendment—
4 Clause 51, line 7, leave out ("parents of registered pupils at the school") and insert ("persons eligible to vote in the ballot").
Lord Belstead: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 4 to the Lords Amendment No. 3. I have already spoken to these amendments.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 4 to the Lords Amendment No. 3.—(Lord Belstead.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

LORDS AMENDMENT
5 Clause 52, page 46, line 31, after ("majority") insert ("of parents eligible to vote").
The Commons disagreed to the above amendment but proposed the following amendments in lieu thereof—
6 Clause 52, page 45, line 9, leave out from ("is") to ("is") in line 10 and insert ("eligible to vote in the ballot").
7 Page 45, line 19, leave out subsection (4).
8 Page 46, line 11 at end insert—
("(7A) Where in the case of any ballot held in respect of a school in accordance with this section other than one held by virtue of this subsection ('the first ballot') the total number of votes cast in the ballot by persons eligible to vote in the ballot is
28
less than fifty per cent. of the number of persons so eligible, it shall he the duty of the governing body to secure that another ballot (the second ballot') is held before the end of the period of fourteen days beginning with the date immediately following that on which the result of the first ballot is determined.
(7B) In any case to which subsection (7,4) above applies—

(a) the result of the first ballot shall he disregarded for the purposes of section 52(l) of this Act: and

(b) subject to subsection (7C) below, the provisions of this section shall apply as they apply in a case where the governing body of a school are under a duty by virtue of section 50 of this Act to secure that a ballot is held in accordance with this section.

(7C) In any such case—

(a) those provisions shall apply with the omission of subsections (3)(a) and (5); and

(b) subsection (5A) above shall be read as if the information there referred to were the information given for the purposes of the first ballot.").

9 Page 46, line 28, at end insert—
("(10A) For the purposes of this section, a person is eligible to vote in any ballot held in respect of a school in accordance with this section if he is—

(a) known to the governing body to he a parent of a registered pupil at the school: and

(b) named as a parent of such a pupil in the register kept in accordance with the requirements of the 1944 Act in the case of the school, as that register has effect on the date immediately fo11owing the end of the period of fourteen days beginning with the date on which the relevant resolution or request was passed or received by the governing body.

(10B) For the purposes of paragraph (a) of subsection (10A) above, it shall he for the governing body to determine any question whether a person is a parent of a registered pupil at the school; and in paragraph (b) of that subsection the reference to the relevant resolution or request is a reference to the resolution or request (mentioned in section 50(4) of this Act) by reference to which the ballot is required to he held or, where the ballot is a second ballot under subsection (7A) above hr reference to which the first ballot was required to he held.").
10 Page 46, line 31, after ("majority") insert ("of votes cast in the ballot hr persons eligible to vote in the ballot (within the meaning of that section)").
11 Page 62, line 16, at end insert—
("Where section 51(7A) of this Act applies in the case of any such ballot, the references in sub-paragraphs (i) and (ii) of paragraph (b) above to the result of that ballot shall he read as references to the result of the second ballot required hr that subsection.").
12 Page 90, line 40, leave out from ("given") to ("and") in line 41 and insert (".for the purposes of the originating ballot to persons eligible to vote in that ballot (within the meaning of section 51)").
13 Page 206, line 26, at end insert—
("50A. In section 80 of that Act (registration of pupils at schools), after subsection (1) there shall he inserted the following subsection—
'(1A) Without prejudice to the generality of subsection (1) of this section, the prescribed particulars shall include particulars of the name and address of every person known to the proprietor of the school to he a parent of a pupil at the school…").
Lord Belstead: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do not insist on their Amendment No. 5 to which the Commons have disagreed and do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 6 to 13 en bloc in lieu thereof..
Moved, that the House do not insist on their Amendment No. 5 to which the Commons have disagreed, and do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 6 to 13 in lieu thereof.—(Lord Belstead.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

LORDS AMENDMENT
14 Clause 115, page 113, line 5, at end insert—
("(5A) The Council shall appoint a sub-committee to advise on its functions in relation to universities in Scotland.").
The Commons disagreed to the above amendment but proposed the following amendment in lieu thereof—
15 Clause 115, page 191, line 23, at end insert—
("Scottish and Welsh Committees of Universities Funding Council
9A. The Universities Funding Council shall establish committees under paragraph 9 above for the purpose of advising the Council on the exercise of their functions in relation to universities in Scotland and universities in Wales respectively.").
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do not insist on their Amendment No. 14 to which the Commons have disagreed and do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 15 in lieu thereof..
As your Lordships will recall, the Government have long accepted that there should be a body to advise the Universities Funding Council on matters concerning the Scottish universities. In keeping with the generally facilitative nature of this part of the Bill, we had not thought it necessary to set out this kind of detail on the face of the legislation. This House took a contrary view. As noble Lords will sec, the Government and the other place have accepted the spirit of that amendment. But the alternative that comes back from the other place makes the following changes to the wording that your Lordships agreed. First, it extends the requirement also to the intended Welsh committee of the Universities Funding Council. I feel that that is particularly appropriate because I happened to be in Wales on the day that your Lordships passed the measure in favour of the Welsh committee..
Secondly, the alternative corrects the nomenclature. While the University Grants Committee has sub-committees the Universities Funding Council will have committees. The correct word obviously is "committee". Thirdly, it places the provision more appropriately in Schedule 6 alongside the other provisions relating to committees of the funding council. I beg to move.
Moved, That the House do not insist on their Amendment No. 14 to which the Commons have disagreed and do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 15 in lieu thereof.—(The Lord Chancellor).
Lord Morton of Shuna: My Lords, all I wish to say is that I am very glad that the Commons did not disagree to a radical extent with regard to the Scottish sub-committee. As a Scot, and speaking from this Bench, it would be unwise of me to say anything deterimental to the establishment of a Welsh committee.
The Earl of Perth: My Lords, I also have pleasure in accepting the amendment. I think that the wording is a little better than that which we put down—for example, in elevating us to a committee as opposed to a sub-committee. The only difference is the addition of the Welsh committee; and it would be churlish of us to object to that..
30
As your Lordships know, the university education of Scotland is very different from that of either England or Wales. To have Wales also with us in a committee, albeit a different committee, is commendable. It recognises the difference that I have mentioned. We have to thank the Government for recognising the force of our amendment..
Lord Grimond: My Lords, I must apologise, in particular to the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor, for having missed his words. As someone who has put down this amendment three times, or has added his name to it, I should like to thank the noble and learned Lord for having virtually accepted the argument. Like the noble Earl, Lord Perth, I accept the Government's amendment. I am glad that the historic and very important position of Scottish universities is now recognised on the face of the statute, and it has been on most statutes since the Act of Union.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lords who have accepted the small alterations that we have made in the wording of this provision, while accepting the spirit of what your Lordships had agreed upon.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

LORDS AMENDMENT
16 Clause 115, page 113, line 6, leave out ("payments, subject to such terms and conditions") and insert ("grants, specifying such particular obligations, and subject to such general guidance").
The Commons disagreed to the above amendment but proposed the following amendment to the words so restored to the Bill—
17 Page 113, line 6, leave out ("payments") and insert ("grants'').

LORDS AMENDMENT
17ZA Page 115, line 34, at end insert—
("(3A) Before exercising their discretion under section 115(6) or (as the case may be) section 116(7)(a) of this Act with respect to the terms and conditions to be imposed in relation to any grants each of the Funding Councils shall consult such of the following bodies as it appears to the Council to be appropriate to consult in the circumstances, that is to say—

(a) such bodies representing the interests of relevant institutions as appear to the Council to be concerned; and

(b) the governing body of any particular relevant institution which appears to the Council to be concerned.

(3B) References in subsection (3A) above to relevant institutions arc references—

(a) in relation to consultations required to be carried out by the Universities Funding Council, to universities; and

(b) in relation to consultations required to be carried out by the Polytechnics and Colleges Funding Council. to institutions within the PCFC funding sector.").

COMMONS CONSEQUENTIAL AMENDMENTS. TO THE BILL
The Commons proposed the following consequential amendments to the Bill—
18 Clause 116, page 114, line 22, leave out ("payments") and insert ("grants").

AS AN AMENDMENT TO COMMONS. CONSEQUENTIAL AMENDMENT No. 18
18A Page 114, line 22, after ("grants") insert ("following consultations with the governing body of any institution within the PCFC funding sector").

LORDS AMENDMENTS
19 Page 114, line 27, leave out ("payments") and insert (''grants'').
20 Clause 117, page 115, line 25, after ("any") insert ("grants or other'').
21 Page 115, line 32, after third ("the") insert ("grants or other").
22 Page 115, line 33, leave out ("payments made by").
23 Page 115, line 39, at end insert ("grants or other").
24 Clause 189, page 167, line 29, leave out ("payments") and insert ("grants").
4.15 p.m.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I am sorry to say that what I shall now deal with is just a little complicated. The amendments that were proposed to the Commons amendments came rather late. We have as a result of these late amendments proposed in effect a rewording of them. This has come in the shape of a manuscript amendment. When I say "manuscript" your Lordships will be glad to know that it is not my manuscript but in a much more readable form. There are copies around the Chamber. I hope that most of your Lordships have them. However, I propose to read the amendment through once, fairly slowly. The rules may require me to read it twice, but unless your Lordships feel that it should be repeated, after I have read it perhaps noble Lords will allow me to leave it at that..
I beg to move that the House do not insist on their Amendment No. 16 to which the Commons had disagreed and do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 17 to the words so restored to the Bill and in their consequential Amendments Nos. 18 to 24 to the Bill..
Perhaps I could pause there. The effect of that is to substitute in the original wording of the Bill, the word "grant" instead of "payment". Your Lordships may remember that that was a matter of some question. The other consequence is that the phrase "terms and conditions" is restored so that the Bill will read very much as it did before except that "grant" will replace "payment". that will happen not only in relation to the Universities Funding Council but also to the Polytechnics and Colleges Funding Council, because it is right that there should be symmetry in these arrangements. So far the position is relatively simple..
The noble Lord,Lord Swann, and others, have put down various amendments to that system proposing consultation with someone before the terms and conditions are settled. I now refer to the part which is the manuscript amendment and which deals with that; and propose the following manuscript amendment to the Bill in lieu of Amendment No. 16 to which the Commons have disagreed.
"Clause 115, page 115, line 34, at end insert—
(3A) Before exercising their discretion under section 115(6) or (as the case may be) section 116(7)(a) of this Act with respect to the terms and conditions to be imposed in relation to any grants each of the Funding Councils shall consult such of the following bodies as it appears to the Council to be appropriate to consult in the circumstances, that is to say—

(a) such bodies representing the interests of relevant institutions as appear to the Council to be concerned: and

(b) the governing body of any particular relevant institution which appears to the Council to be concerned.

32
(3B) References in subsection(3A) above to relevant institutions are references—

(a) in relation to consultations required to be carried out by the Universities Funding Council, to unversities: and

(b) in relation to consultations required to be carried out by the Polytehnics and Colleges Funding Council, to institutions within the PCFC funding sector.")"

That is the amendment proposed. It would be fair to describe it as I did earlier in the first part and to say that it adds in some detail appropriate machinery for consultation before the terms and conditions, if any, to be imposed are decided upon where the Universities Funding Council or the Polytechnics and Colleges Funding Council are considering exercising their discretion to make grants subject to terms and conditions.
I do not wish to go over the whole of this matter. I hope that these amendments will not be entirely unacceptable to your Lordships. However, there are some background matters that it may be worth putting on record here in connection with these proposals. I believe, as I have said, that your Lordships accepted at Report the amendments by the noble Lords, Lord Swann and Lord Adrian, relating to the powers of the Unversities Funding Council to which I have referred. This was itself amended in the other place on 19th July.
The focus of the debate has, I believe, changed. It now seems to be generally accepted that, as the Croham Report said,
"the mechanisms of conditionality and earmarking available to the University Grant Committee will he required in order to manage public resources effectively".
But, in case there is any lingering doubt, I should restate the arguments briefly.
By way of introduction to them, I should remind the House of two points: the first is that the Bill's provisions on university funding follow the recommendations of the Croham Committee very closely. For the first time, the public funding of universities to the tune of some £1·5on annually will have a proper statutory base. I believe that that is correct. The aim generally has been to carry forward the present non-statutory arrangements into a statutory context. This was never an attack on universities, to which the Government continue to look for a vital contribution to our national life. I personally owe far too much to universities to be any part of an attack on their contribution to our national life. Quite the reverse; the provisions in the Bill in fact represent a rather more constrained set of powers than is available at present.
Legislation affecting universities is rare, so their apprehensions on seeing the funding framework set out in black and white for the first time were not, I suppose, altogether surprising. My second point is therefore to remind the House of the Government's efforts—both in this House and the other place—to reassure the universities and clarify the Bill's provisions. We have sought to do that with the help of your Lordships as the Bill developed in this House.
There remained, though, continuing concerns about "contract funding" which led the House to agree with the noble Lords, Lord Swann and Lord Adrian, that the Universities Funding Council's power to make payments to universities subject to

33
such terms and conditions as the council thought fit should be reduced to a power to make:
"grants. specifying such particular obligations and subject to such general guidance as they think fit".
The other place, with its particular responsibility for Vote expenditure, has made it overwhelmingly clear that this amendment will not provide a sound basis for the annual disbursement of very large sums of' taxpayers' money. While it is ready to accept the use of the word "grants" instead of "payments", it seeks the reinstatement of "terms and conditions". Let me explain briefly why these words are necessary.
First, they provide for proper accountability. The other place, which votes the funds, must be able to be satisfied that they are used for the purposes intended and in accordance with financial proprieties. That must be right. The chief officers of the funding councils will be accountable for that to the Public Accounts Committee. They cannot simply hope that all is well. Appropriate financial memoranda need to be in force as binding conditions of institutions' funding.
The councils must also be able to continue the present practice of earmarking funds—for example, for the engineering and technology initiative and the programme of rationalisation reviews initiated by the UGC. These need the precise and ultimately binding targeting of funds if they are to be satisfactorily achieved. Indeed, without the certainty provided by "terms and conditions", would the Government be ready to provide additional funds for these good purposes?
Finally, the councils must be able to attach broader terms and conditions. The present funding bodies already do this on student number planning targets and the developing emphasis on academic and financial plans as a basis for coherent funding. I believe personally that the academic plan plays a very important part in the development of the organisations in universities.
As to the particular issue of contract funding, I believe that the Government have given satisfactory assurances. As the noble Lord, Lord Butterworth, reminded us on 16th May, the Croham Committee was the first to use the word "contract". Admittedly it put quotation marks around the word to show it was not talking about contracts in the strict sense. I am not sure that I understand exactly what that meant, but it shows that with the quotation marks round it there was a certain doubt about the matter. The Government do not wish to insist on very detailed contract provisions, such as those with which the noble Lord, Lord Swann, entertained us by reciting at Second Reading and on occasion thereafter.
To put the position beyond doubt, let me repeat my right honourable friend the Secretary of State's unequivocal reassurances in the other place last week when these amendments were being considered. He made it clear that the new funding arrangements must not be excessively bureaucratic. That is the essential matter that concerned the noble Lord, Lord Swann. I sought to reassure him without success but the Secretary of State has done it now in these clear words and I hope that this time he will be persuaded.
34
Secondly, the new funding arrangements must respect the distinctive characteristics of higher education. Thirdly, they must not jeopardise the pursuit of research or scholarship and they must not deprive institutions of the flexibility they need to seize new opportunities.
So, in response to the questions posed by the noble Lord, Lord Adrian and others at the Committee and Report stages, all that "contracting" means is a clearer articulation of features already existing in the present arrangements, which is another way of saying what I said when this matter was debated on Report. As an example of this, my right honourable friend cited the UGC's practice over the past two years of agreeing academic plans with universities as a basis for funding. The universities have not resented this, and in many cases have welcomed the clarity provided as a way to organise their affairs.
Turning now to the substance of the amendments before us today, the Secretary of State provided a further reassurance in the other place on 19th July about the funding councils powers. He said that, as a matter of course, the way in which the funding councils will interpret "terms and conditions" will be developed through consultation.
The amendments in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Swann, and other noble Lords seek to reflect the Secretary of State's commitment on the face of the Bill. In all the circumstances, and to secure agreement, the Government are ready to accept such a move. But I should make clear that such consultation would in any case be bound to happen. Any reasonable council will consult appropriately anyway. Indeed, consultation would seem to be a central feature of any "contract" system, for most contracts require some form of agreement. However, I am sure that the noble Lords who have proposed the amendment will not be offended if I say that we believe that our amendments are just a little better drafted. We have had the benefit of parliamentary counsel's help in the matter. I am not in any way criticising the drafting of those other amendments when I say that ours are perhaps more technically accurate. The manuscript amendment in the name of my noble friend Baroness Hooper seeks to overcome these slight drafting difficulties and to ensure the clarity which Parliament must provide.
It seems clear that we should impose identical requirements on the Universities Funding Council and the Polytechnics and Colleges Funding Council. There is no justification for treating them differently. This points to the provision appearing in Clause 117 which deals with supplementary matters affecting both councils.
There is also the question of whom to consult. It seems clear that the answer will not be the same in all circumstances. In relation to terms and conditions attached to funds allocated to a particular institution, consultation would, of course, he with that institution. Where more general conditions are intended to affect all institutions, more general consultation might be appropriate. For example, as I have indicated, the funding councils will want to ensure that institutions are properly able to manage and account for the use of the funds provided; a

35
general condition—for example, one of accountability—affecting all institutions might be appropriate. I imagine that they will want to draw up a standard financial memorandum but also to consult all institutions on it to see whether any particular local circumstances also need to be taken into account.
But there may be cases where consultation is best taken forward with representative bodies such as, in the case of the universities, the Committee of Vice-Chancellors and Principals. I am thinking in particular of discussions about how new funding arrangements will develop. The Government's amendment provides for the funding councils to make these kinds of' decision as appropriate in relation to the particular conditions in question.
In sum Clauses 115 and 116 confer on each council a necessary power to attach terms and conditions. Clause 117 already qualifies that power to ensure that such conditions may not relate to income received from sources other than the councils. That is in response to the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Adrian. The proposal now is that there must also be prior consultation with the appropriate body.
Against the background of what now seems to be general agreement of the principle involved, I commend to your Lordships the Motion which I have read out in the name of my noble friend Lady Hooper.
Moved, That the House do not insist on their Amendment No. 16 to which the Commons have disagreed and do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 17 to the words so restored to the Bill and in their consequential Amendments Nos. 18 to 24 to the Bill, and agree to the manuscript amendment (No. 17ZA) to the Bill in lieu of Amendment No. 16 with which the Commons have disagreed.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
4.30 p.m.
Lord Swann: My Lords, as it is my amendment which is being amended for the second time, if not possibly the third, I should like to say straight away that I warmly welcome the Government's amendment. It does exactly what we wanted and it is phrased much more elegantly than was ours. Not only do I welcome the amendment but, so I discover, do my noble friends Lord Beloff and Lord Halsbury (who added their names to it) and the noble Lord, Lord Adrian, who regretfully must be in the Middle East..
I must confess to a few twinges of disappointment, having spent the weekend thinking up powerful arguments and sharp criticisms which must now be muted. However, I should like to make a few comments in order to point out why we caused so much trouble at various stages of the Bill, particularly at this eleventh hour, why we believe that this is such an important matter and why we so warmly welcome the Government's amendment..
Before doing so I should like to clarify one matter. I was told that it was thought by some people that we were put up to this by the Committee of University
36
Vice-Chancellors and Principals. That is by no means the case. We acted entirely independently..
What is all this about? We have heard a great deal about contracts, with and without inverted commas round them. It began with the report of the noble Lord, Lord Croham, who had inverted commas round his contracts. When it came to the government White Paper it did not have inverted commas round the contracts; when a consultative document was produced it did not have inverted commas either but it contained a massive amount of what I can only describe as suffocating bureaucracy. It is that consultative document which has caused all the trouble..
I shall not go over the various amendments and what has been done to them because the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor has done so much more clearly than I could. However, I should like to describe briefly how the present amendment, borne of our amendment, has come about..
The noble and learned Lord quoted what the Secretary of State said in another place; his unequivocal assurances which have been widely welcomed and his promise that there should be consultation. I believe that he actually called it "meaningful discussions". He is to be congratulated on those promises; they have gone down very well. But—and we believe that it is a serious "but"—Secretaries of State do not last forever; far from it. Their words are not binding on their successors. Therefore, while higher education can feel more confident about the immediate future, there can be no certainty whatever about what will happen as the years go by. Ministers, governments and financial crises will no doubt come and go. Bureaucracy has an alarming tendency of escalating without anyone realising what is going on except its victims..
I remember the noble Lord, Lord Flowers, saying at an earlier stage of the Bill that he believed that it has grown exponentially in recent years. From what I have observed I should hazard a guess that, where universities and research are concerned, it has indeed been growing exponentially, doubling every three years. Exponential growth has a habit of becoming faster; six years makes it fourfold and nine years (the length of time that this Government have been in office) makes it eightfold. I do not necessarily stick to those precise figures, but it is true that bureaucracy has a habit of growing without people noticing. I shall not again regale your Lordships with some of the examples that I gave during the earlier stages of the Bill..
Once the Bill becomes an Act it will last not only for Mr. Baker's time as Secretary of State. However, whether it will acquire the classic status of the great Education Act 1944 remains to be seen. Whether or not it lasts for 44 years, we believe that there needs to be written into it such protections as we can give against funding, which could all too easily become less and less liberal and more and more bureaucratic..
Our universities and other institutions of higher education are highly esteemed. Indeed, some are among the best in the world. It would be disastrous if undue constraints were ever to be laid on their freedom of thought and action. Putting into the Bill

37
the necessity for consultations on the manner of their funding will, we believe, provide a lasting statutory weapon in case of need. It will go a long way towards dispelling some of the short-term, and still more the long-term, apprehensions which have so troubled the academic world. The positive right to argue one's own case -is, after all, well worth having..
Finally, I hope that the consultations will at last start in a new atmosphere of mutual good will. I suggest that they start with the Croham Report and quietly forget the consultative document.
Lord Beloff: My Lords, I have only a couple of remarks to make in joining with the noble Lord, Lord Swann, to thank the Lord Chancellor for having improved on our original amendment. I am delighted, as is he and as I believe the universities will be, that this important point has been taken..
The first point that I should like to make is that, perhaps along with many other noble Lords, I read with some surprise in The Times on Friday last that government sources had said that it was bad form to be bringing forward at this stage another amendment, as had the noble Lords, Lord Swann and Lord Adrian and the noble Earl, Lord Halsbury, and I. I believe that if that language was used, it was extremely inappropriate. As the noble Lord, Lord Swann, has said, we are dealing not with some passing phase in legislation but with the remodelling for perhaps a generation or longer of the relations between our government and higher education, science and learning in this country. I believe that it was nothing less than the duty of this House to use every constitutional opportunity open to it to make certain that what we ultimately had could be found acceptable not only to us but to the university community at large.
I found the remark even more surprising in the light of the speech made on Tuesday, 19th July, in another place by the Secretary of State, referred to by the noble and learned Lord. It went very far towards meeting many of the anxieties expressed in this House over the course of the discussions of the university provisions in the Bill. Therefore, it seemed odd to me that it should be thought curious or bad form to suggest that one of the assurances could reasonably be incorporated in the Bill..
The reason why we wish to have it incorporated has been referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Swann. One of the difficulties of debating or discussing higher education with Ministers is that dons and politicians are very different kinds of animal. On the whole, dons specialise in a particular subject and a particular area of that subject. Whatever may be thought by the Under-Secretary for Higher Education in another place, it is not easy to regard a professor of sanskrit and a professor of "tribology" as interchangeable units of production. But Ministers are different. They are movable; they have ambitions; they expect to move, to Downing Street or Brussels as the case may be. Therefore, as the noble Lord, Lord Swann, said it seems essential that anything which is intended to last for a long period of time should be on the face of the Bill..
38
It is not only Secretaries of State who will change. The members of the original funding councils will not he immortal. They will have their successors, and it seems improbable that their successors would immediately remember that the Secretary of State had made a speech on 18th July 1988 (which may be 20 or 30 years in arrears) and hasten to look it up in order to know how to exercise their responsibilities..
Therefore, we have wished to see on the face of the Bill what we accept to be the goodwill of the Government towards higher education, which has been expressed today by the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor. I think we are now all happy to say—as has been commented on in other quarters—that on universities at least the Government have advanced a very considerable way from the Bill as it originally came before your Lordships' House. There have been considerable advances in understanding—as has been the point of all the amendments on the university clauses which we have discussed— that there can be no healthy relationship unless it is based on confidence, on mutual understanding and on consultation. This afternoon we are putting in the last brick in the edifice, that of consultation..
Once again I should like to join in thanking the noble and learned Lord for his contribution to that end.
The Earl of Halsbury: My Lords, as one of the sponsors of the original amendments, I am very grateful to the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor for all the hard work undertaken last week-end in producing a situation which somewhat confutes the leading article in this morning's Times. I am not concerned with the article that appeared on Friday or Saturday. I am in entire ageement with the amendment as proposed by the noble and learned Lord upon the Woolsack, and I give it my full support.
Lord Jenkins of Hillhead: My Lords, I concur in what the noble Lord, Lord Swann, said earlier except for one point: I do not think that he should apologise for having caused trouble on this matter. Any trouble that he has caused has been very well worth while. I agreed with the noble Lord, Lord Beloff, when he pointed out that words in speeches are not as good as language in statutes. We are therefore grateful that there is some statutory language before us on this important point..
Nonetheless, I am also grateful to the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor for the forthright way in which he spoke this afternoon about his commitment to universities. I thought he struck a more constructive and helpful note than he has done at certain earlier stages in the Bill. I am sure that that represents his real view. We note it and are very grateful indeed for it..
I hope that I am not being unduly churlish in saying that I still incline to the view that his Bill will do little, if any, good for our universities, but it will do a great deal less harm than when it started, and that progress is largely due to the work which has been done in this House.
4.45 p.m.
Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone: My Lords, I wonder if somebody who is not quite such a pundit can append a word or two about this matter. I have been caused a good deal of distress by this longstanding controversy. I have been connected in one way or another with higher education both in the universities and in the polytechnics for the greater part of my life..
I think the real lesson to be learnt is that there are limits to what can be achieved by parliamentary draftsmanship. The one secret whereby higher education in its diverse forms can be made to run smoothly in this country is that government—by which I mean any government—and universities and polytechnics—by which I mean all of them—should work both in harmony and in mutual trust with one another. Without that, no degree of parliamentary draftsmanship is possible..
As my noble and learned friend on the Woolsack probably knows, although I have played no public part in this controversy I have taken an interest in it from the start. One of the pieces of advice that I ventured to give was that the noble and learned Lord should be brought into the question, as he has been to great effect. I should like to congratulate him on what he has done.
Lord Flowers: My Lords, it may not seem entirely inappropriate if an active, living, vice-chancellor says a few words before the House moves on..
First, I must say that I am grateful to Mr. Kenneth Baker and to his ministerial colleagues, and especially to the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor, for going so far to meet the genuine anxieties of the universities about the financial implications, especially, of this Bill..
The present chairman of the Committee of Vice-Chancellors and Principals, Sir Mark Richmond, is known to be broadly satisfied with the position now reached. We are all deeply grateful to all noble Lords who have given their support to higher education during the various stages of this mammoth piece of legislation..
Of course I accept the Commons decision that the funds provided to universities through the Universities Funding Council shall be in the form of grants subject to terms and conditions. That was clearly spelled out in the Croham Report, which the universities have welcomed. Moreover, I am perfectly happy to accept Mr. Baker's unequivocal assurances solemnly given in another place last week that the terms and conditions would themselves be subject to terms and conditions, which he was careful to spell out and which are also perfectly satisfactory to me..
My concern, which I share with the noble Lords, Lord Swann and Lord Beloff, is that Mr. Baker will not be Secretary of State forever and other Ministers may put different interpretations on the Bill if it is not amended. Indeed, other Ministers within Mr. Baker's department already appear to offer different interpretations, so if this Bill is to last for 50 years, as we have so often been promised, it needs to be interpreted correctly no matter who is Secretary of State..
40
Mr. Baker spoke impressively of the common ground between the universities and the Government. He said that the Government would not proceed further without having meaningful discussions—that was his phrase—with the leaders of higher education. I was greatly comforted by that assurance. Neverthless, I feel bound to point out for the benefit of the generally cynical Civil Service that meaningful discussions imply more than the mere consultation with which we are so frequently fobbed off. Meaningful discussions mean no less than that the leaders of higher education shall be represented at the conference table. Almost the first business to be discussed around the table should be the financial memoranda which will in future govern the financial arrangements between the Government, the funding councils and the institutions of higher education. That is where the terms and conditions will have to be thrashed out. That is why it is important that we be represented..
The manuscript amendment to which the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor has spoken achieves what we seek. All that remains for me therefore is to thank the Government for listening to us. I shall support the amendment.
Lord Croham: My Lords, as the name of my committee has been referred to once or twice, perhaps I may say a few words..
The procedure described by the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor that will now follow in the handling of grants as the result of the amendments passed by Parliament is very much in line with what my committee envisaged would happen. We deliberately did not spell out every detail. We believe that procedures will need to be worked out by what we call the University Grants Council, which is now to be called the Universities Funding Council. Little has been said this afternoon about the importance of the new constitutional position and the new constitution of that council in the working out of future arrangements for the universities. The council will be much more independent and have much more standing because it will not be so readily accused of being merely a spokesman for a vested interest..
The noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor pointed out something that seemed to get lost in much of the discussion—namely, that the Government are reducing their powers in the Bill, not increasing them. Everything that noble Lords have feared the bureaucrats might do could be done very readily under present arrangements and will be done much less readily under future arrangements. Therefore, I think that we have now reached a point at which the universities can be much more assured of their future than they might have been before. They will not receive large sums of money without any conditions; of course there will be occasions when earmarking is appropriate. Indeed, if one goes round the universities, one will find that many faculties are very keen on earmarking to preserve the funds that they believe are their own due. That said, I think that we can be reasonably satisfied that the fears that were created last year by that very foolish, half-baked consultative document about contracts have now been subdued.
Lord Peston: My Lords, it would be dishonest of me if I did not say that I believe that the original amendment put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Swann, and others and carried by your Lordships was better than this. I believe it to have been better than this. I am happy that mine is not the first discordant remark made. The noble Lord, Lord Jenkins of Hillhead, made a remark earlier, with which I entirely agree, that at best the parts of the Bill dealing with universities do less damage than they earlier did. However, that is about the best that we can say. That is why I felt I must start by speaking as I have..
As to the substantive issue before us, it is a matter of balance between providing general funding according to broad criteria and providing specific funding when—to use the exact phrase of the noble Lord, Lord Croham—earmarking is appropriate. I certainly believe that there will be occasions when earmarking is appropriate. if the Government wanted an economics department to concentrate specifically on the economics of Europe post-1992, it would be perfectly reasonable to suggest that funding might be found for such a department. The point at issue all along has been: how frequently is "occasionally"? Our worry is that we just do not know how frequently occasionally is. We shall have to hope that occasionally will not be frequently in terms of earmarking..
Those are my churlish remarks. However, I believe that the amendment is an improvement. I am particularly glad—I had intended to ask the question—to be assured that the CVCP—the
Committee of Vice-Chancellors and Principals--and the committee of polytechnic directors are among the bodies that would be consulted, I hope as a matter of course, on matters of general principle to do with funding..
I have one last remark. Unlike other noble Lords, I am not worried about the Secretary of State: I have no worries about the specific Secretary of State not continuing to be such, because I am one of those who would hope that neither he nor any of his friends in the other place will continue in office for very long, but that is a personal prejudice on my part. My worry on bureaucracy and interference has nothing to do with the Secretary of State; with the funding council. In my life as an academic, I think that the UGC has already gone too far in poking its nose into the details of what happens in universities. There is too much of that kind of thing. There are too many committees to which one has to go, and there are too many plans with which one has to be involved. My worry all along has been not about the Secretary of State but about the behaviour of the funding council..
I do not want to end on an entirely discordant note. I hope that the interpretation that the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor puts on the amendment—that the funding council will not act without consultation and will not interfere in matters where it knows nothing but where I would claim boastfully that some of us who are practising academics do know something—is correct. With other noble Lords, I think that what is proposed is better than my worst fears, and for that I thank the noble and learned Lord.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I am very grateful to the noble Lords who have spoken in support of what we propose. For my part, my view is that nothing but good could have come out of the Bill as it was, and all that we have done is to make even more plain the excellence of our intentions..
I am slightly sorry that the Civil Service was referred to as generally cynical. I think that I may be permitted to say that, while no doubt there are some cynics in the Civil Service, the proportion of cynics there is perhaps no larger than among living, working vice-chancellors..
I am grateful to all noble Lords who have spoken. In particular, I am very grateful for the kind remarks of my noble and learned friend Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone. As your Lordships will appreciate, the kind of remark that he makes is one that is specially precious to me in my present circumstances..
On Question, That the House do not insist on their Amendment No. 16 to which the Commons have disagreed and do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 17 to the words so restored to the Bill and in their consequential Amendments Nos. 18 to 24 to the Bill and agree to the manuscript amendment to the Bill in lieu of Amendment No. 16, Motion agreed to.

LORDS AMENDMENT
25 Clause 115, page 113, line 9, at end insert—
"(6A) In exercising their functions in relation to the provision of financial support for activities eligible for funding under this section the Council shall have regard to the desirability of not discouraging any university in respect of which payments are made under subsection (6) above from maintaining or developing its funding from other sources.".
26 The Commons agreed to the above amendment with the following amendment—
Line 5, leave out ("payments") and insert ("grants").
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 26 to the Lords Amendment No. 25. This is a consequential amendment.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 26 to the Lords Amendment No. 25.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

LORDS AMENDMENT
27 Clause 116, page 114, line 32, at end insert—
("(7A) In exercising their functions in relation to the provision of financial support for activities eligible for funding under this section the Council shall have regard to the desirability of not discouraging any institution within the PCFC funding sector in respect of which payments are made under subsection (7) above from maintaining or developing its funding from other sources.").
28 The Commons agreed to the above amendment with the following amendment—
Line 5, leave out ("payments") and insert ("grants").
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 28 to the Lords Amendment No. 27. Again, this is a consequential amendment.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 28 to the Lords Amendment No. 27.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

LORDS AMENDMENT
29 After Clause 117, insert the following new clause:
("Inspection of accounts.
(1) The accounts of

(a) any university;

(b) any higher education corporation; or

(c) any institution designated under section 113 of this Act as an institution eligible to receive support from funds administered by the Polytechnics and Colleges Funding Council;

shall be open to the inspection of the Comptroller and Auditor General.
(2) In the case of any higher education corporation or of any such institution as is mentioned in subsection (1)(a) or (c) above—

(a) the power conferred by subsection (1) above; and

(b) the powers under sections 6 and 8 of the National Audit Act 1983 (examinations into the economy, efficiency and effectiveness of certain bodies and access to documents and information) conferred on the Comptroller and Auditor General by virtue of section 6(3)(c) of that Act;

shall be exercisable only in, or in relation to accounts or other documents which relate to, any financial year in which expenditure is incurred by the corporation, or by the governing body of the institution in question, in respect of which payments are made to them under section 115 or 116 of this Act.").
30 The Commons agreed to the above amendment with the following amendment—
Line 20, leave out ("payments") and insert ("grants").
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 30 to the Lords Amendment No. 29. Once again, this is a consequential amendment.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 30 to the Lords Amendment No. 29.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
5 p.m.

LORDS AMENDMENT
31 After Clause 188, insert the following new clause:
("Assistance to education of children of British nationality residing for the time being outside the United Kingdom in another member state of the European Community.
.—(1) For the purpose of facilitating the free movement of families to take advantage of employment opportunities within other member states of the European Community, the Secretary of State shall take action as specified in subsections (2) to (5) below to assist in maintaining and improving educational standards at British schools situated within other member states and to facilitate access to such schools by the children of British expatriates for the time being residing and working in those states.
(2) The Secretary of State shall establish a category of school situated in another member state of the European Community having such characteristics as are specified in subsection (3) below and in regulations which he may make.
(3) The characteristics mentioned above are that the school—

(a) provides education for pupils who have attained the age of five but not the age of nineteen years and are of British nationality but are residing in anther member state of the European Community; and

(b) has a curriculum approved by the Secretary of State and which is broadly similar to the curriculum the pupil would follow if receiving an education in England and Wales.

(4) For the purpose of maintaining and improving the standard of education at such a school, the Secretary of State shall—

(a) make arrangements for the inspection of such a school at appropriate intevals by H.M. Inspector of Schools,
44
with the school being responsible for the Inspectors' travel and local expenses;

(b) provide on a regular basis to such a school information on educational development in England and Wales and also facilities such as in-service training for teachers as he may consider necessary or desirable to enable the school to continue to offer an education broadly comparable to that available in England and Wales; and

(c) take such measures as he deems appropriate to facilitate the recruitment of British teachers by these schools and in due course their re-employment in the United Kingdom.

(5) The Secretary of State shall make an order to establish a Grant Scheme for the purpose of enabling children of parents of British nationality for the time being residing and working in another member state of the European community, who might otherwise not be able to do so, to benefit from an education at a school in the category described in subsection (2) above and so facilitate their return to a school or institute of higher education in the United Kingdom.").
32 The Commons disagreed to the above amendment but proposed the following amendment in lieu thereof—
("Services for schools in other member States providing education fin- British children.
.—(1) This section applies to any school which—

(a) is situated in a member State other than the United Kingdom;

(b) provides education for pupils who are British citizens have attained the age of five years but not the age of nineteen rears and are residing in that member State:

(c) has a curriculum which, in the case of any pupil at the school, is broadly similar to the curriculum which he would follow if he were a pupil at a maintained school in England and Wales: and

(d) has such other characteristics as may be prescribed.

(2) In the case of a school to which this section applies the Secretary of State shall—

(a) on a regular basis provide the persons responsible for the management of the school with such information relating to educational development in England and Wales as he thinks appropriate: and

(b) if those persons so request, make arrangements for inspections to he made of the school at such intervals as appear to him to he appropriate by persons appointed as inspectors or additional inspectors under section 77(2) of the 1944 Act.

(3) The Secretary of State shall charge the persons at whose request any inspection of a school is made under this section such fees as will cover the full cost of the inspection.
(4) In this section "maintained school" means any county or voluntary school or any grant-maintained school.").
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do not insist on their Amendment No. 31 to which the Commons have disagreed and do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 32 in lieu thereof.
As I said on previous stages of the Bill, the Government are very conscious of the problems which the amendment originally proposed by my noble friend Lady Young and others, and passed by your Lordships, was intended to address. The education of the children of those working in other parts of the European Community is clearly an important matter and one that will need to be addressed with some care if talented people are to be encouraged to spend parts of their career in member states. The Government are in no doubt on that score, particularly in the context of 1992..
However, my noble friend's amendment, as it stood, went considerably further than we are yet in a position to go. In doing so it also raised questions of privilege. The amendment substituted for it does not, I fully recognise, address the central problem to

45
which my noble friend drew our attention. The question of financial assistance with the cost of education in member states raised a large number of legal and practical problems. The Government are concerned about the scope of such assistance in terms both of the schools to which it might relate and the individuals who would qualify. It is not clear, for instance, that it would be possible to confine assistance to British citizens..
All these matters will need to be thoroughly investigated before decisions can be made. I have already assured your Lordships, and I repeat the assurance now, that the Government will look very carefully at what is involved to see whether a way forward can be found. In the meantime, the Government's amendment underlines our appreciation of the role played by the British independent schools in Europe and our willingness to offer such help as we can.
Moved, That the House do not insist on their Amendment No. 31 to which the Commons have disagreed and do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 32 in lieu thereof.—(Baroness Hooper.)
Baroness Young: My Lords, I have listened, as always, with great care to what my noble friend Lady Hooper said. She will understand that, to say the very least, I feel greatly disappointed in the amendment that the Government have brought forward..
In common with some of your Lordships, I went to the other place to hear what might be said on this amendment. If I may say so without disrespect to the other place, not for the first time I felt that its procedures were not as efficient or effective as our own. The amendment was not debated at all. I should like to place on record at the beginning of my remarks my gratitude to my honourable friend Mr. Alan Haselhurst, who managed to say something about the amendment when another amendment was being taken, I think completely out of order. It seemed the only way of getting the amendment referred to at all..
I express my disappointment because this amendment has had almost universal support in this House. From my own experience of the House I cannot recall so many Members having been prepared to remain throughout a sitting of the Report stage from three o'clock in the afternoon until eight o'clock the following morning, when the amendment was called. They were prepared to stay in order to speak. That was indicative of the very real support that your Lordships have given to the solution of what is recognised as a great problem..
At the risk of restating the points I made, but speaking now that the opportunity presents itself to do so at a rather more reasonable hour—it was first raised at one o'clock in the morning during the Committee stage and at eight o'clock in the morning on Report—I reaffirm the importance which I attach to this amendment. My noble friend Lord Young has been conducting a most effective campaign about the importance of 1992 and of Britain playing a real and continuing role in the new and expected common market in Europe. I support that entirely and I believe it has the support of all noble Lords. Indeed,
46
I quoted from one of the booklets that the noble Lord has issued on the importance of that matter..
It is an absolute tragedy that we as a country have decided to handicap ourselves by not being able to find a way round what will be a perfectly reasonable question that many business people will raise when asked if they will work in the Community countries across the Channel. The big companies, of course, will pay for the education of children at British schools if people so wish it. Some business people will pay the fees because they will be able to afford to do so. However, it is just those firms we are keen to encourage in Europe—the medium sized and smaller firms and the less well-known firms, to say nothing of the self-employed—which will find it difficult. Almost the first question which anyone asks when requested to work in continental Europe is, "What about the education of my children?". It is precisely on that point that I tabled my amendment..
One must compare the position here with what other countries do to help the education of their children. France spends about £130 million a year, the Federal Republic of Germany spends about £90 million a year and the Italian Government spends about £12 million a year. This country spends no money at all. It is extraordinary that we should have this gap in our provisions. It is a gap which I think will become more evident as the years go by until 1992..
I fully accept that my amendment was probably incorrectly drafted. I listened to the previous debate on the amendment with its improved drafting brought forward by my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor. That showed how important it is that amendments should be properly drafted. I agree, and in my remarks on Report I made clear, that there are great problems. As my noble friend properly said, there is also the matter of privilege. I accept the constitutional point that that raises. However, from my experience of political life I know that pressing forward with something means finding a way round problems. We all know what the problems are; they invariably speak for themselves. The point is to find a way round them. I simply do not believe it is not possible to solve what is a very real problem. Therefore, I welcome the fact that my noble friend said that she will—I think I have noted her words correctly—look carefully at a way forward..
I say to the noble Baroness and to her right honourable friend the Secretary of State that I do not intend to allow the Government off the hook on this matter because it is far too serious. I have always been someone committed to the European ideal. I believe that the chance for the world of this big market of 320 million people, quite apart from the opportunities that it presents to our own country, is very great indeed. There are opportunities for prosperity and full employment. I do not believe that any government department should put obstacles in the way of people going to work in the full Common Market when it comes to pass..
If there are not as many noble Lords on these Benches this afternoon as I would like to speak and to say very much the kinds of things that I have been saying, it is because many have explained that they

47
are unable to be here for one reason or another. Many noble Lords are away on business. I should also like to place on record my gratitude for support during the course of this debate not only to the noble Baroness, Lady David, and the noble Baroness, Lady Seear, and her colleagues, but also to many Members like the noble Lord, Lord Benson, from the Cross-Benches, and my noble friends Lord Jellicoe and Lord Limerick with their extensive experience of business. They feel strongly and they have asked me to say again this afternoon how strongly they consider the importance of finding a solution to what is recognised to be a real problem..
I accept the government amendment as it has been tabled. It has the effect of consolidating the present practice. It does not actually advance the situation. There is one point I wish to raise for specific clarification. Subsection (1)(a) states:
"is situated in a member State other than the United Kingdom".
I take it that this means of the EC, though it does not say so. Not being a lawyer, I am never quite sure whether I am reading these matters correctly..
I feel it would not be an advantage if this general rule was applied to every British school from one end of the world to the other. That may be very nice for them. However, my amendment has been quite specifically confined to British schools with the EC where I believe there is now a very real need. There are other problems as regards other parts of the world, but those are different issues. I would not want what I believe to be the views of the House to be inaccurately reflected in this government amendment. Perhaps my noble friend can clarify that point after I have concluded my remarks..
Because of the question of privilege, I accept this government amendment with disappointment. I assure my noble friend that I shall return to the matter. I shall take up the opportunity that has been extended to me through a letter from my right honourable friend the Secretary of State to discuss the issue further. I believe that we must consider together, as a matter or urgency, a solution to this problem well before 1992.
Baroness Seear: My Lords, from these Benches we strongly support the noble Baroness, Lady Young, in the amendments that she hopes to bring forward. I am extremely glad to hear that she intends to pursue them later in whatever way is open to her. We on these Benches have been unswerving in our support of the development of the EC since the days of the Treaty of Rome. I do not believe that anyone else in this house can say the same. We are also unswerving in our support for the improvement of education opportunities..
It seems that the Government pay lip service to their belief in the development of the EC. They tell us how enthusiastic they are about the internal market in 1992. As the noble Baroness, Lady Young, said, it is true that the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry is pursuing a most vigorous campaign in order that the internal market should be fully developed. However, there are consequences to those stated commitments. As the noble Baroness said, one
48
of the consequences is that if one wants people to work in the single market and if one believes that education is important and one expects people working inside the market to believe education is important, then it is necessary to follow through those commitments and to give the kind of support without which commitments both to the single market and to education sound extremely hollow.
5.15 p.m.
Baroness David: My Lords, as one who had her name attached to this amendment when it was brought forward by the noble Baroness, Lady Young, both at the Committee and Report stages I also express my disappointment that this is all that is to come out of it. It is extremely disappointing. As the noble Baroness said, the amendment does absolutely nothing new. Already there is inspection of schools, and so on. I hope very much, as does the noble Baroness, that there will be some progress..
The noble Baroness has decided that she is going on fighting and I am sure that she will conduct a good fight and will be successful. I do not understand why the question of privilege has been raised at this point. We could have been told about that earlier in the proceedings, which would have saved quite a lot of time and a large number of people staying up late or, rather, staying up early. I am disappointed and in a way slightly shocked. I have every confidence that the noble Baroness will go on fighting for this extremely good cause.
Lord Benson: My Lords, I share in the disappointment which has been expressed so far in this House at the attitude adopted by the Government. Those of us who have the task of finding citizens from this country to extend our industrial and commercial enterprises abroad know how difficult it is to find people who are prepared to throw up all they have in this country in order to serve terms overseas. We all know that one of the factors which is uppermost in their minds is the education of their children so that they may take advantage of higher education when they return to this country. The attitude so far adopted by the Government compares ill with that of other member states in the Community that have found it possible to find support for their own nationals in similar circumstances..
We have heard with attention what has been said by the noble Baroness, Lady Hooper. On three occasions now the Government have expressed sympathy and an undertaking was given, with different degrees of conviction, that they will look into the matter. I suggest that, in the light of the expressions given in this Chamber not only today but on previous occasions, the time has come when the Government should do something positive to make some practical proposals in this regard.
Lord Greenhill of Harrow!: My Lords, I support what has been said by previous speakers. I make one further point. The noble Baroness, Lady Hooper, seemed to suggest that this was a matter which had just been brought to the attention of the

49
Government. I believe the noble Baroness probably knows that the Department of Education and Science and the Department of Trade and Industry were given a report about a year ago on this whole subject and dismissed it. So the Government are not coming new to the problem. An assurance that the matter is to be looked into means that they have paid scant respect to the report submitted and the Government are starting from scratch..
I hope that the Government will respond to what has been said by previous speakers and tackle this problem. It has not only an education and trade effect but also has a big effect on parents and the relationship between them and their children and also between the parents themselves. They have the difficulty of making up their minds on what to do concerning the education of their children. I know from my previous experience in another government department that there is no more fertile ground for family breakdowns than arguments about the education of the children.
Lord Walston: My Lords, I should like to add my voice and I think those of my colleagues on these Benches to those that have been raised to urge the Government to act quickly and efficiently in favour of implementing the spirit behind the noble Baroness's amendment. I shall not repeat the arguments; they have all been made forcefully and clearly. However, it is essential for us in this country to ensure that the best people, and in particular the best younger people, are encouraged to go into Europe in order to promote our interests purely commercially, to promote the European interest and to demonstrate that, in spite of some of the things that have been done and said, we are essentially in favour of a wider and more effective European Community than exists at present..
This very minor matter of enormous importance to a small number of people is merely one indication of that willingness. We urge the noble Baroness, Lady Hooper, and the Government as a whole to give as firm an undertaking as is possible at this stage followed up by firm action in the very near future to ensure that the handicaps mentioned by the noble Baroness, Lady Young, are overcome and that the spirit of this amendment can be implemented.
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, I have listened with great interest to what has been said and I am grateful for the understanding that has been shown of the Government's position. I have no doubt that if, as she says, my noble friend intends to continue with her campaign, she will do so most successfully..
I should perhaps make it clear that, in being sympathetic to the concerns raised by this issue, the Government have attempted to express them frequently. Indeed, my honourable friend the Minister of State managed to say as much in her reply to the brief debate in another place initiated by the honourable Member for Saffron Walden, Mr. Haselhurst. In response to my noble friend's specific question, it is one I faced myself on seeing the amendment tabled. However, it appears that Schedule I to the European Communities Act 1972 defines member states as member states of the
50
European Community for all legislation. That is the explanation..
Today's debate has underlined the importance which your Lordships attach to finding a way forward and has again emphasised the reasons for doing so. We are in no doubt of the strength of feeling on this issue. In response to the noble Lord, Lord Greenhill, the matter is highlighted now in the context of the 1992 campaign, and it was very much in that context that my noble friend originally tabled her amendment. We shall be giving the complex questions involved in it the attention they deserve; of that I can assure the House.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Housing Bill
5.24 p.m.
The Minister of State, Department of the Environment (The Earl of Caithness): My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now again resolve itself into Committee on this Bill.
Moved, That the House do now again resolve itself into Committee.—(The Earl of Caithness.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The LORD CULLEN OF ASHBOURNE in the Chair.]
Clause 17 [Succession to assured periodic tenancy by spouse]:
Lord Hesketh Lord Hesketh moved Amendment No. 40:
Page 13, line 11, at end insert ("or
(c) he became entitled to the tenancy as mentioned in section 39(5) below.")
The noble Lord said: Noble Lords will be aware that Clause 17 established the right of succession to an assured tenancy for the spouse or common law spouse of a deceased assured tenant. The Bill in its original form did not provide a right of succession to an assured tenancy, but it was argued very strongly in the other place that tenants would not automatically negotiate joint tenancies for husband and wife, and there could be great hardship for widows who might be evicted if no automatic right of succession was provided. There was some force in those arguments, and so a right of succession was provided. However, it is a single right of succession for the spouse only. We believe the Rent Act rules which allow two successions err in their generosity to the tenant, and that a landlord should not be deprived of his property without his consent for up to three generations.
This amendment blocks a small loophole in the succession provision. It will be possible under Schedule 4 to the Bill for a family member of a Rent Act tenant to succeed to an assured tenancy on the death of that tenant, provided he or she has met the necessary residence qualification. That successor could himself or herself be a first successor or indeed a second successor already. It would be contrary to our intentions for the spouse of that assured tenant by succession to have the automatic right of succession to an assured tenancy. If the landlord is willing to grant the tenancy voluntarily, that is a

51
different matter. However, we do not want to perpetuate successions over which the landlord has no control.
We are not here affecting the rights of existing tenants; we are simply ensuring that where there are successions which take place after commencement on the death of Rent Act tenants, the spouses of the successors do not themselves become automatic second generation successors. This is a small amendment to ensure consistency in our succession provisions, and I hope that it will be accepted as such.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 17, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 18 and 19 agreed to.
Clause 20 [Assured shorthold tenancies]:
The Earl of Caithness The Earl of Caithness moved Amendment No. 41: Page 14, line 26, after ("is") insert ("a fixed term tenancy").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
The Earl of Caithness The Earl of Caithness moved Amendment No. 42:0
Page 14, line 27, at end insert—
("(aa) in respect of which there is no power for the landlord to determine the tenancy at any time earlier than six months from the beginning of the tenancy; and").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendments Nos. 43 and 44 not moved.]
Lord Monson Lord Monson moved Amendment No. 45:
Page 14, line 38, leave out subsection (3).
The noble Lord said: This is essentially a probing amendment. Incidentally, I should mention that my noble friend Lord Lytton is absent today because he is unwell and not because his enthusiasm for the amendment and for Amendment No. 47 has in any way waned.
Subsection (3) of the clause seems to propose an unnecessary bureaucratic restriction on the landlord and one which is unlikely to fire him with enthusiasm for putting vacant property back on the letting market. Let us suppose, for example, that he has converted a part of his home into a self-contained flat or maisonette which he then lets on an assured tenancy. He then hears from his son who happens to be working in the Gulf, in Nigeria or in California that things have not worked out quite as planned and that he—that is, his son—together with his wife and children intend to return to the United Kingdom in six months' time and would like to be put up.
Is it not reasonable that in such an instance a landlord should wish to transform the present assured tenancy into a shorthold tenancy with a life of six months so as to be able to provide accommodation for his son, daughter-in-law and their children, with a lower rent to the existing tenant as a quid pro quo? As the Bill stands, that option does not seem to be open to him. I beg to move.
5.30 p.m.
The Earl of Caithness: One of the basic principles of the new regime is that, once a tenant has been
52
granted a full assured tenancy, he should have the benefit of long-term security of tenure of a kind broadly comparable to that currently enjoyed by tenants under the Rent Act. During the debates in another place the argument was advanced that an unscrupulous landlord might seek to undermine this protection for the tenant by persuading him to accept a new tenancy which was designated, by virtue of service of the appropriate notice, a shorthold. An unwary tenant might agree to such a proposal without realising its full significance and thus forfeit his long-term security. The Government accepted that it was right to guard against this eventuality. We therefore inserted the present sub-section (3) into Clause 20 to provide that a tenancy cannot qualify as a shorthold in the situation where it is granted to someone who was hitherto the tenant under a full assured tenancy and where the landlord was, immediately beforehand, the same person as the landlord granting the new tenancy.
Our view is that a safeguard of this kind is entirely reasonable. It seems virtually impossible to envisage any circumstances in which a landlord having granted a full assured tenancy with long-term security for the tenant would then have any justification for replacing that tenancy with a shorthold. If a landlord is genuinely unable to commit himself to long-term letting, the answer must be to grant a shorthold from the outset. I believe that that provision covers the point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Monson.
It is of the essence of our approach on security of tenure that tenants should know where they stand from the very beginning. The amendment tabled in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Monson, would run counter to that central principle. At this stage, I must say how sorry we all are that the noble Earl, Lord Lytton, is not present in the Chamber because he has a wealth of experience, being a surveyor, and we hope that he will be able to resume discussions with us shortly. The amendment could place tenants in a position of considerable uncertainty. Indeed, it might open the way to serious abuse.
Lord Monson: Once again the Government seem to have at the forefront of their minds the picture of a large impersonal landlord—or possibly a medium-sized one. They do not seem to realise the problems of the really small landlord. The Government make much play of their support for family life. But I am bound to say that their opposition to this amendment hardly seems to tally with their declared intention, because the noble Earl has not answered the question which I effectively posed in my introduction to the amendment. I asked what happens when the landlord's family wish to occupy the property in question..
However, I should like to consider the matter further during the Summer Recess. Therefore, for the moment, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
The Earl of Caithness The Earl of Caithness moved Amendment No. 46:
Page 15, line 6, leave out ("and") and insert ('to").
On Question, amendment agreed to. Clause 20, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 21 [Recovery of possession on expiry or termination of assured shorthold tenancy]:
Lord Monson Lord Monson moved Amendment No. 47:
Page 15, line 32, leave out ("two month's") and insert ("one month's").
The noble Lord said: Once again I am proposing an amendment to make shorthold letting more attractive so as to provide rented accommodation for people who cannot find it at the moment, as the Government want and, as I am sure, the Opposition also want. The Committee will not need reminding that the whole shorthold concept, introduced with such a fanfare by the Government some years ago, has so far been a dismal flop. It will remain a dismal flop until such time as potential shorthold landlords—I stress the word "potential"—feel that the dice have ceased to be loaded against them.
If I rent a house or cottage for six months, nine months, 12 months or two years, then six months, nine months, 12 months or two years, as the case may be, is exactly the period I would expect to stay in that property; no less, but certainly no more. If by chance the landlord should tell me towards the end of the tenancy that he can spare the property for another month or so, that is an added bonus—or could be if I wished to stay on, as of course I may not. However, it is not something I should expect as of right. I am sure that most Members of the Committe will feel the same way about this.
In its present form the Bill totally stands the normal form of contractual arrangement on its head. It provides that a tenant entering into, say, a 15-month contract should nevertheless be entitled to stay in the property pretty well indefinitely, unless the landlord gives him two months' notice on the day that the tenant has occupied the property for precisely 13 months. That seems to me to be extraordinarily inflexible and potentially extremely inconvenient for the landlord. The shorter period of notice of one month which we propose is still somewhat inflexible but rather less inconvenient in that it gives the landlord an extra month to decide whether he is in a position to re-let, whether he wants to re-let and, if so, for how long. I beg to move.
The Earl of Caithness: Clause 21 provides that a landlord who has let a dwelling as an assured shorthold tenancy has a mandatory right to possession when the fixed term comes to an end, or during any statutory periodic tenancy which follows it. In order to exercise this right he must give the tenant two months' notice that he requires possession. As the noble Lord, Lord Monson, has just explained, he would prefer that period to be reduced to one month..
In framing the new shorthold rules in this Bill we wanted to produce a form of the tenancy which would be both more attractive to landlords than the old style shorthold tenancy under the Housing Act 1980, and simpler to use. We have reduced the minimum length of a shorthold from a year to six months; we have reduced the normal period of notice from three months to two and we have simplified the possession procedure by removing the limitations on when the landlord can seek possession. So we have
54
already gone a long way in the direction that the noble Lord wants and I hope that- he will acknowledge this. I think that what we have proposed meets many of the concerns that the small landlords—for whom he is speaking so well—have been at pains to point out to us are deterring them from letting. That is something we want to change..
The period of notice is of course a matter of judgment. There is no magic about any particular number. The present three months seemed to us too long; the two months in Clause 21 seems about right. For the tenant who is well behaved and has not broken any terms of his tenancy to be on just one month's notice of losing his house seems too short to us. I can understand the noble Lord's case, but I cannot agree with him that the two months should be reduced to one.
Lord Monson: I acknowledge that the Government have gone some way towards making shorthold letting more attractive. However, I do not think that they have gone far enough. I am glad to see the noble Lord, Lord Bellwin, in his place this afternoon because I remember so well his saying, on the first day in Committee, that there were 200,000 houses and flats waiting to come back on the market if conditions were made sufficiently attractive for landlords. As the Bill stands, I do not think that the conditions have been made sufficiently attractive for more than a tiny proportion of those 200,000 dwellings to come back on the market..
I shall not press the amendment because I have not received any support for it thus far. However, I shall try to work out a better argument than the one I have at the moment for at least some modification of the clause. Perhaps we may be able to compromise on the issue at the next stage of the Bill's proceedings. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave withdrawn.
Lord Graham of Edmonton Lord Graham of Edmonton moved Amendment No. 47A:
Page 15, line 35, after ("end") insert ("provided that such a notice may not be served more than two months before the tenancy comes to an end nor more than three months before proceedings for possession are commenced").
The noble Lord said: I beg to move Amendment No. 47A tabled in the name of my noble friend Lord McIntosh of Haringey. The object of the amendment is to ensure that the notice required under Clause 21(1)(b), which states that the landlord
"requires possession of the dwelling-house",
forms a genuine part of the procedure for recovery of possession and puts the tenant on notice at an appropriate time. Otherwise such a notice could be issued at the beginning of a tenancy and become a meaningless formality. At present proceedings for possession of a shorthold tenancy can be heard within 14 days of service on the tenant. The tenant would thus be deprived of the opportunities both to obtain legal advice and arrange representation, if appropriate. What is more important, it would deprive him of the opportunity to make alternative arrangements for accommodation.
In our view, the proposal would not jeopardise the free market position embodied in the provisions. It

55
would be similar to the provisions of business tenancies provided by Part H of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1954. I hope that the Minister will understand that we are trying to amend the Bill so as to be reasonable to people who need just a little extra grace.
The Earl of Caithness: As the Bill is drafted, a landlord wishing to obtain possession of a dwelling let on a shorthold tenancy is required to give the tenant at least two months' notice to the effect that possession is required. There is no restriction as to the actual point at which the landlord must serve the notice. Thus, a landlord granting a shorthold and knowing that he will require possession as soon as the fixed term comes to an end may choose to serve notice on the tenant at the very outset of the tenancy. That will please the noble Lord, Lord Monson, who, alas, is not in his place, because then the tenant would know for certain when the term was coming to an end..
In another case the landlord might serve notice at some point during the course of the fixed term. In yet another case he might wait until the fixed term comes to an end or if he is happy for the tenancy to continue on a periodic basis even later. The crucial point is that the tenant will always have at least two months' notice that the landlord requires possession..
In moving the amendment the noble Lord, Lord Graham of Edmonton, has argued the need for a restriction as to the point at which notice can be given to the tenant. I do not find his argument persuasive. Our view is that where a landlord granting a shorthold knows well in advance, perhaps indeed from the very outset of the tenancy, that he will require possession at a particular time, there is no reason at all why he should delay giving notice of the fact to the tenant. To impose a requirement of the kind suggested by the noble Lord would be a quite unnecessary restriction from the landlord's point of view. One of the points frequently made about the old-style shorthold tenancy procedure is that the requirements for giving notice to the tenant are needlessly complicated. We want to get away from that in this legislation..
In any case, I should have thought that it would be in the tenant's own interest to have as much notice as possible that possession will in due course be required. The more notice he has, the more time there is to think ahead and make plans accordingly. So from that point of view the noble Lord's amendment would seem to me to work very much to the disadvantage of the tenant. Having been a tenant, I know the great advantage of the longer notice when having to find alternative accommodation because the landlord wanted the house back.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: The Minister may well be right. I know that he is not dogmatic and that his remarks are based on the empirical experience of himself and others. He argued that the provision would be to the disadvantage to the landlord. I am not primarily concerned with the landlords interests. I am primarily concerned with the tenant's interests. However, I accept that there are circumstances when
56
one must be fair and reasonable. In his concluding two or three sentences, the Minister said that the amendment could well act to the detriment of the tenant's interests. He used his experience to point that out. I am grateful for the care and courtesy he has shown. Those inside and outside this place will read what he has said with care. We may come back at a later stage. At this stage, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. Clause 21 agreed to.
Clause 22 [Reference of excessive rents to rent assessment committee]:
Lord Hesketh Lord Hesketh moved Amendment No. 48:
Page 16, line 9, leave out ("if").
The noble Lord said: On Report in another place the Minister accepted the argument that the proviso contained in Clause 22(1) served no useful purpose and therefore undertook to delete it. The amendment fulfils that undertaking. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Hesketh Lord Hesketh moved Amendment No. 49:
Page 16, line II, leave out from ("above") to ("may") in line 14.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 50 not moved.]
Clause 22, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 23 agreed to.
Lord Dean of Beswick Lord Dean of Beswick moved Amendment No. 51:
After Clause 23, insert the following new clause:
("Prohibition of premiums etc.
.—(1) Any person who, as a condition of or in connection with the grant, renewal, continuance or assignment of an assured shorthold tenancy, requires or receives, in addition to the rent, the payment of any premium, or requires the making of any loan (whether secured or unsecured) shall be guilty of an offence.
(2) Where the purchase of any furniture has been required as a condition of the grant, renewal, continuance or assignment of an assured shorthold tenancy, then if the price exceeds the reasonable price of the furniture, the excess shall be treated for the purposes of subsection (1) above as if it were a premium.
(3) Where an assured shorthold tenancy is granted, renewed or continued, any requirement that rent shall be payable—

(a) before the beginning of the rental period in respect of which it is payable, or

(b) earlier than three months before the end of the rental period in respect of which it is payable (if that period is more than three months)

shall be treated for the purposes of subsection (1) above as if it were a requirement for a premium, and any payment of rent in pursuance of such a requirement shall be treated as if it were the payment of a premium.
(4) Where under any agreement any amount is paid and that amount could not lawfully be required or received under subsection (1) above, the amount shall be recoverable by the person by whom it was paid.
(5) Any amount which a tenant is entitled to recover under subsection (4) above may, without prejudice to any other method of recovery, be deducted by the tenant from any rent payable by him to the landlord who received such an amount.
(6) In this section, unless the context otherwise requires—
"furniture" includes fittings and other articles; and
"premium" includes—

(a) any fine or other like sum;

(b) any other pecuniary consideration in addition to rent; and

57

(c) any sum paid by way of deposit, other than one which does not exceed one-sixth of the annual rent and is reasonable in relation to the potential liability in respect of which it is paid.").

The noble Lord said: I shall speak also to Amendment No. 52. The purpose of the amendments is to apply to assured shorthold tenancies provisions broadly equivalent to those in the Rent Act 1977 which prohibit the charging of premiums and similar payments in respect of protected tenancies. As the Bill stands, landlords will be free to charge limitless premiums in the case of assured and assured shorthold tenancies. A prohibition on premiums, sometimes known as key money, is necessary if people on average or below average incomes are to have access to private rented accommodation after the passing of the Bill.
It is necessary to prevent hardship and the exploitation of tenants and prospective tenants through a practice which could well become standard. The Government's stated aim is to revitalise the private rented sector to meet the needs of people who cannot afford to buy a home. Those people tend to fall into one or both of the following categories—those whose income is too low to raise a mortgage or those who have insufficient savings to cover a deposit and the other initial costs of buying a home.
If landlords are permitted to charge premiums, it is likely that they will do so, especially in London and other areas of high demand for rented housing. Such areas constitute a sellers' market. The Government's overall policy objective is therefore likely to be frustrated as low-paid workers, unemployed people, and other low income groups such as students will be unable to afford the initial costs of a new letting. Hardship may result where tenants pay premiums. People anxious to secure accommodation but lacking resources to meet the cost of a premium may borrow the money. They will therefore find themselves in debt at the beginning of the tenancy and consequently will be more likely to fall into rent arrears with the accompanying threat of eviction and homelessness.
There is little doubt that some unscrupulous landlords will abuse the freedom to charge a premium. Camden Housing Aid Centre, for example, knows of three recent cases in the Belsize Park area where landlords have attempted to charge premiums ranging from £3,000 to £6,000 for the grant of protected tenancies even though that is illegal. In addition, premiums are frequently sought in connection with the grant of lettings outside Rent Act control where there are no legal restrictions on such payments.
The scope of the amendment is limited to assured shorthold tenancies where the charging of premiums will cause hardship and injustice. The assured shorthold scheme will provide tenants with minimal security of tenure only. It is wholly unreasonable in such circumstances to expect tenants to pay substantial sums in addition to the rent merely to obtain accommodation. It is also likely that some landlords will routinely charge additional premiums as a condition of renewing an assured shorthold tenancy. Tenants will, in effect, have to choose
58
between making a further lump sum payment or losing their home to be replaced by someone willing and able to pay a further premium.
At the same time, the charging of premiums will provide landlords with the means to circumvent the limited rent control afforded by the scheme. It is right and proper that the Act should seek to protect tenants from those abuses.
The Government amended the Housing (Scotland) Bill on Report in this place on 6th July to prohibit premiums on assured tenancies. The wording of the Government new clause was:
("Prohibition of premiums etc. on assured tenancies.
Sections 82, 83 and 86 to 90 of the Rent (Scotland) Act 1984 (which make it an offence to require premiums and advance payment of rent in respect of protected tenancies and make related provision) shall apply in relation to assured tenancies as they apply in relation to protected tenancies (including protected tenancies which are regulated tenancies), but with the following modifications—

(a) section 83(5) shall not apply; and:

(b) section 88(1) shall apply as if for the references to 12th August 1971 there were substituted references to the date of commencement of this section.").

If the Government have prohibited premiums for assured tenancies in the Scottish Bill, I maintain that there is no reason at all that I can see why it should not be extended to this Bill. I think equal treatment is expected by all those concerned in this exercise; that is what they are entitled to. I beg to move.
Lord Ross of Newport: I am very much in support of these amendments because I fear that we shall be seeing the introduction of premiums on assured shorthold tenancies, particularly in areas of greatest stress, almost certainly in London, Brighton, and other of our great cities. I am sure that the noble Earl will know what is happening on leasehold tenancies in shops and commercial properties at present. Quite extraordinary premiums are being paid—key money. One cannot really say premiums; it is key money to get in. Some people paying these huge sums will get a nasty shock when the rating lists are published in 18 months' time when the new business assessments are published. Nevertheless, these amounts are paid now.
If we are serious about attempting—and I believe the Government are serious—to get some rented accommodation on to the market, surely the people whom we want to be in a position to obtain those tenancies are people who will not be forced out by having demanded of them vast sums such as those quoted by the noble Lord, Lord Dean of Beswick, in the cases of Camden and elsewhere. I suspect in some cases thousands of pounds may well be demanded. I think that the Government would be right, if they started by bringing in this form of assured shorthold tenancy, to ban or to continue the restriction on premiums. if we are to have market rents, let us have market rents but no nonsense about key money in addition. Therefore, I heartily support the amendments.
The Earl of Caithness: I am well aware that the issue of premiums, sometimes described, as both noble Lords have said, as key money has in the past been an emotive one. Nonetheless, I hope that I can

59
persuade your Lordships to put emotion on one side and consider the subject in a purely objective way.
Premiums are illegal under the Rent Act. The justification for the prohibition is that without it landlords would resort to premiums as a means of getting round statutory rent control. In practice, the prohibition has never proved easy to enforce but the underlying logic is clear enough. However, under a deregulated regime the premium must inevitably be seen in a different light. Once landlords have the freedom to charge a market rent, as they will have under this Bill, the argument for prohibiting premiums no longer holds good. On the contrary, the freedom of the landlord and tenant to negotiate the payment of a capital sum as part of the charge for granting a tenancy can be viewed as a perfectly logical and reasonable feature in the operation of the market.
We have no reason to believe that premiums will be widely charged for the new style tenancies. But where they are charged, it must be the case in a free market that as a consequence the rent which the tenant pays will be reduced below that which would otherwise have applied. That is a principle which is already well established in the market for commercial lettings and long residential leases where premiums have long been accepted as a fact of life.
However, there are more immediate precedents too. Housing associations can at present charge premiums for tenancies. As the noble Lord, Lord Ross of Newport, will know, some do so. The noble Lord, Lord Dean of Beswick, will recall the Rent (Agriculture) Act 1976. This gave statutory security of tenure to farm workers in tied cottages but did not impose rent control. It allowed the charging of premiums for agricultural tenancies. Perhaps most relevant of all, premiums have been permitted under the old style assured tenancy regime and to the best of my knowledge have never been the subject of a single complaint during the eight years that regime has been in existence.
Against this background we have concluded that there is no compelling argument for including a prohibition on premiums for either full assured tenancies or shorthold tenancies to which this amendment relates. To reverse this decision would, we believe, fly in the face of a free market principle which is fundamental to the Bill. Surely logic, consistency with other forms of tenure and simplicity of legislation all point against prohibition.
The noble Lord, Lord Dean of Beswick, raised—and rightly so—the question of what happened on the Housing (Scotland) Bill. I must remind Members of the Committee that there are substantial differences in the position north and south of the Border on this matter. That is not unusual. As I have said, the concept of the premium is already well established in England and Wales. This is not the case in Scotland. There are no long residential leases under Scottish law. Nor do the Scots have old style assured tenancies or the same agricultural tenancies as we have in England and Wales. Registered housing associations in Scotland are not permitted to charge premiums. Consequently
60
premiums have never been an accepted feature of the housing market north of the Border.
These legal and historical differences between England and Wales on the one hand and Scotland on the other seem to us to justify a divergence of approach on the issue of premiums. I realise that some Members of the Committee feel very strongly about this, but if we are to move into a free market where the landlord and tenant can agree a lower rent if a premium is charged, why should they not do so?
Lord Taylor of Gryfe: I am tempted to intervene in this discussion only because I think I heard the Minister say that key money or premiums were not a familiar feature of the Scottish housing situation. I must say that I disagree entirely with that point of view. We discussed the matter on the Scottish Bill at very great length in this Chamber. The Minister's noble friend Lord Sanderson resisted the abolition of the premium at an early stage but agreed to give it further consideration.
On further consideration, the Government agreed that premiums or key money were an undesirable feature. Consequently they conceded the amendment which would abolish premiums or key money. For the life of me, I cannot understand why it is an undesirable feature of housing legislation north of the Border but is being allowed for our less favoured friends south of the Border. I wish to resist the proposition that it has never been a serious feature of Scottish housing practice.
Lord Stallard: I find the discussion a wee bit unreal, particularly the remarks of the Minister. In the real world we know—and almost unanimously critics of the Bill have said—that this shorthold or assured tenancy will be a dead letter before very long. Landlords will have no incentive to let on this basis when they can have an assured shorthold tenancy. They will all go for the shorthold because it gives them an outright power to do a number of things.
First of all, they can evict; they can give notice after six months. They are not going to give an assured tenancy if they can get an assured shorthold with that incentive for eviction. They will waive all the other rights that tenants have—for example, the right to registration, the right to repairs—because it will react against them if they intend to apply for a further extension or for a further tenancy. They will not complain about anything at all if the minute they do the notice to evict them is effective.
The argument that shorthold market rent levels will be lower as a quid pro quo because of the insecurity does not add up either in our view, for the same reasons. Although these shorthold tenants will have a right to apply to a rent assessment committee during the first fixed term, very few will do so for the reasons that I have just mentioned. Which tenant is going to apply to that committee or argue about the rent or any other aspect of the tenancy, including key money, if he knows that that could lead to an eviction notice which he already dreads getting?
As regards key money, I understand that some of these tenancies will be for private tenants and other people such as the homeless who are seeking

61
accommodation and who, in desperation, will be only too pleased to take on an assured tenancy and pay key money. But where will they get the key money from? That provision will rule out people who really need rented accommodation as none of them will be able to afford the kinds of sums that my noble friend mentioned. Those sums exist, certainly in the borough where I live. In that borough key money and premiums run into thousands. No one desperate for rented accommodation will be able to afford key money even if after obtaining the tenancy they were bold enough or brave enough to raise the kind of objections that the Minister considers they will make. They will not make those objections because in reality they would be thrown out of the accommodation and they would not be granted any further tenancy on that property. The whole matter is a mess. It cannot work and it will not be of any help at all to the people who really need rented accommodation.
6 p.m.
Baroness Fisher of Rednal: I wish to support my noble friend Lord Stallard regarding premiums. That money will be difficult to find, especially for those whom the Government have said they wish to help rehouse. The situation will be particularly difficult in London.
If those people are at present living in appalling housing conditions, surely to goodness they will not he able to put down a premium, as my noble friend has just pointed out. This provision is not going to help those people who really need help. The Government must be concerned at the present moment as regards the houses for sale market because of the gazumping that is going on. The same thing will occur with premiums. I could offer £250 to a landlord as a premium and somebody else could then offer £300. The rented sector premium will become subject to the same kind of gazumping that applies to prices in the houses for sale market. I should not have thought that the Government wanted that phenomenon to occur in the rented market.
Lord Bellwin: I think that we are losing sight of what the Bill is trying to do. The Bill is trying to encourage landlords who at present have dwellings and who will not rent them out because of lack of security of tenure and because of their inability to obtain reasonable rents for those dwellings. The more we impose restrictions, the less likely it is that those dwellings will become available. Surely that is the underlying nub of what we are seeking to do.
As the Minister has told us, there is no substantial record of landlords demanding premiums. If we wish to release all these hundreds of thousands of empty dwellings that we are told about by persuading landlords that it is worth while renting the dwellings out, the more we impose restrictions on landlords the less likely it is that they will rent their dwellings out. I confess to being unclear as regards why the situation in Scotland is different from the situation in the rest of the country. Therefore I shall just have to listen to what is said about that. I make no comment on it at the moment.
I know that some Members of the Committee are anxious about premiums. That concern is very
62
properly expressed, but I do not think that in practice one can ask for more rent than people can pay or that one can ask for premiums that people cannot pay. It is a market situation. But we must try to persuade people who own accommodation in the private sector to make it available for rent.
I have a final point to make about housing and rent. The more units that are available and taken up, the more there will be available for others. When units are blocked out for any reason, people cannot take advantage of them. If some do, it leaves room at the other end. So, for example, when council tenants move into the private sector their dwellings become available for other people in the public sector. The more the entire stock of housing is brought into use, the more help it is to those who most need accommodation. I am only concerned about the point of the different situation in Scotland as compared with England. That is not clear to me. But I am not as concerned about the other aspects of this matter as are those Members of the Committee who have expressed fears.
Lord Stallard: Will the noble Lord expand on a point that he mentioned? He said that he was concerned about getting homes for the people who most needed them. That is my concern also. There are 2½ million homeless people. How will the premium. the maximum rents and all the other incentives to landlords that the noble Lord, Lord Bellwin, mentioned ease the problems of the homeless? Most of those 2½ million homeless people are on supplementary benefit or its equivalent.
Lord Bellwin: But the fact is that if dwellings remain empty, for whatever reason, that helps no one at all. If landlords do not make them available for rent, it helps no one. I submit, and I am sure the Minister submits also, that the whole purpose of this part of the Bill is to make more dwellings available. I remember very well introducing the shorthold concept in this Chamber. Members opposite said that it would be the policy of their party, when it returned to office, to do away with the concept of shorthold tenancies. That put quite a kybosh on that whole concept. It discouraged landlords who might have been willing to offer dwellings for rent.
Let us be consistent about this and let us remember that what we are really about is trying to get these units of accommodation brought into the housing stock so that people can occupy them. That is what I understand this Bill is about.
Baroness Macleod of Borve: I agree with all Members of the Committee who have spoken except the noble Lord who has just spoken. I thought that the intention of the Bill was to help people who did not have homes of their own. That is why the Government want to make far more accommodation available for rent.
As has been said by other Members of the Committee, if one allows rent to become expensive and one allows a premium to be imposed as well, the people who cannot afford to buy and who need to rent will be in an impossible situation and the whole purpose of what the Government are trying to do will

63
be undermined. I cannot see that that is fair to the people who want rented accommodation.
Money is very short for people up in the North. They want to get jobs down in the South. They do not have homes and they cannot afford to buy homes in the South. They need rented accommodation, but if on top of rent they are asked to pay Rachmanite key money I think we shall have put a coach and horses through what the Government are trying to do.
Earl Russell: I was a little perplexed by the reference made by the Minister to free market principles. I am aware that rents in shorthold tenancies are market rents. However, there is a procedure in Clause 22, if I have read it correctly, for those rents to be referred, checked and controlled. That means that although they are market rents, they are not entirely free market rents.
So the Minister has recommended a market which is partly totally free and partly not entirely free. That is likely to have the effect that such measures have had ever since the reign of King Henry VIII of causing premiums to soar while rents remain under control. 'That is likely to cause certain problems.
I have a special interest in these matters. Teaching in London as I do. I am well aware of the difficulties suffered by students in finding accommodation in London at suitable prices. That is a matter on which my noble friend Lord Flowers was consulting with Mr. Jackson last week. It is a matter on which the Minister might usefully be in touch with the Department of Education and Science. It should be borne in mind that most undergraduates are not equipped with large sums of capital and are not in a good position to pay large premiums.
Lord Diamond: When the Minister comes to reply to the debate, perhaps he will clear up a point on which I am confused. As I understand it, under the proposed new tenancies it will not be illegal for a landlord to propose a premium on residential property, by whatever name it may be called. Assuming that I am right in supposing that it is the Government's intention that landlords and tenants should get together and agree the terms of a tenancy, it may be that in some cases it will suit both parties for a small premium to be paid rather than a larger rent and in other cases perhaps a slightly larger rent will be charged with no premium. What will the effect of all that he on the relief and housing benefit which the Minister has promised will fully take the place of increased rents rising through market forces? Will the premium, whether it be small or large, be taken into account and spread over the period of the tenancy?
Lord Ross of Newport: Perhaps I may put the point to the Minister that what often upsets decent landlords is a tenant who is in an assured tenancy and charges a premium for the transfer of the tenancy. Presumably that is what will happen in this case. A tenant may well, after six months, turn around and demand a premium from someone else who is coming in.
I listened to the noble Lord, Lord Bellwin, with interest. The whole matter is one of supply and
64
demand. There will not be any supply if, right at the outset, the only people who rent the properties are extremely wealthy, want them for short periods and are able to pay sizeable sums of money for a premium. If we want to get market rents, let us ban premiums. Then the rent assessment committees can say whether or not the rents are fair. The noble Earl, Lord Russell, has rightly pointed out that under Clause 22, if the charge is far too high, the RACs will decide accordingly.
We want to see the Bill work. However, most of us feel that if premiums are allowed it will not work in many parts of the country. In other parts of the country where there is a surplus, the premium is not necessary in any case.
Lord Trafford: There is a slight contradiction in what Members opposite have been saying. I understand that many of them do not like the concept of market rents and a free market in housing. Fair enough. However, for those who feel that the Bill may make a contribution to an increase in general housing stock and help to alleviate the shortage, it seems unfortunate to put too many trip-wires in the way of those who might otherwise be tempted to bring forward part or all of their own properties for rental. I do not have in mind an enormous company owning hundreds of flats. I have in mind the smaller landlord.
Estimates have been made and announced in this House of anything up to 200,000 properties which may be brought onto the market in the private rented sector. We have heard talk about another 200,000 properties which the Government have locked away in the MoD and various other places which are lost, in one way or another, to present housing use.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: The Ministry of Transport.
Lord Trafford: Someone is shouting, "Ministry of Transport". That may be so as well. There may be an equivalent, or even larger, number of properties with local authorities. The Bill is trying to increase the amount of housing stock that is available for the purpose of housing people. One of the ways of encouraging one end of the spectrum—the private sector—to bring housing onto the market is by making the market as free as possible.
I take the point made by the noble Earl, Lord Russell, on rent assessments. However, we must remember that the rent assessment is against a market rent and other assured tenancies. It is not the same as the present and previous rent tribunals. The more difficulties we put in the way of those who are likely to bring for-ward one or two properties or part of their own property, the more they will say, "I do not think I am going to be bothered to do that".
I am not speaking of enormous companies or the man who is in major property development. They may well be looking far more carefully (for all sorts of reasons which the smaller landlord will know only too well) at a much longer term of tenancy. I believe that this type of tenancy is ideally suited to the small landlord who has one or two properties. The more difficulties we put in his way, the more difficult it will

65
be to make that part of the rented sector work. It will reduce mobility of labour as well. Those would be unfortunate consequences.
6.15 p.m.
Lord Dean of Beswick: I do not wish to join in a Second Reading debate. However, the Government have been questioned about homelessness week after week and month after month, and we are always being told to wait for the forthcoming Housing Bill. We have been told that it will make a tremendous impact on the situation. I have heard nothing to date which will do that.
The Minister has been poorly briefed if he says that there is no historical evidence of the practice of key money being widespread. Key money was a feature in most housing that was rented before the large slum clearance schemes started. I paid key money for the first house in which I was a tenant in Manchester, and so did many other people.
I shall not speak of London because I was chided in a friendly way earlier in our debates when I referred to London as the pressure-cooker in the housing situation. However, the Minister has not convinced me that there is any difference between those people who want rented housing in Manchester, Liverpool, Sheffield or Leeds and the people in Glasgow. Why should there be a differential? Why should people who need houses to rent in England be treated differently from those in Scotland? I appreciate the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Taylor of Gryfe, when he gave us his vivid portrait of what actually takes place. He talks from experience about Scotland. I am also grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Macleod of Borve, for her support. She said many things in her charming and humane way better and more forcefully than I could.
What type of key money are we talking about? If we are talking about the pressure-cooker of London, £125 or £150 per week is not a high rent. Where will people get down-payments for such properties? We are speaking of people whom the Government are supposedly dedicated to helping. We are not speaking of people at the top end of the market who tend to buy houses rather than rent them. We are talking about people who need houses badly and who will always need a substantial amount of assistance towards their rent.
Across the country over 50 per cent. of the people who are at present tenants of various types of housing ranging from local authority housing, housing associations and so on are receiving substantial financial support from the Government. To allow someone to be asked for key money—that is all we are talking about—in the centre of London or Manchester and the landlord to say that they can have the tenancy at £150 per week but they must put down £3,000, which is three or four months' rent, before they start to pay rent, will not take one homeless person off the streets of London or Manchester.
I am afraid that if the Minister cannot give a better reply—and he has not convinced me of the Government's case—I have no alternative but to test the will of the Committee.
The Earl of Caithness: Before the noble Lord decides finally, I think that it would be appropriate if I were to reply to some of the points which have been raised. I should like to stress to my noble friend Lady Macleod of Borve that housing associations can at present charge premiums for tenancies and that some do. Premiums can be charged under the Agriculture (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act of 1976.
I said that I had not heard of any complaint during the eight years of the old style assured tenancy regime. I think that the noble Lord, Lord Dean of Beswick, understood me to be speaking on a wider basis when I said that I had not heard of any complaint. There have been complaints, but to my knowledge they do not relate to the old style assured tenancy regime. However, where they do, it goes to show just how difficult it is to enforce the banning of premiums. Because of the restricted market some landlords have sought to get round the ban on premiums under the Rent Act.
I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Diamond, for raising the important point of housing benefit. I confirm to him that housing benefit is not payable on the premium; it is payable only upon the rental. We have agreed to increase that to take account of market rents. However, we doubt that that would put the tenants dependent upon housing benefit at a disadvantage. The reason for that is that the proportion of private tenants claiming benefit is such that if landlords were to charge a premium the choice of tenants who might apply to them would be reduced very severely.
The noble Lord, Lord Ross of Newport, suggested that if we do not prohibit premiums the scheme in the Bill will not work and the supply of rented homes will not be forthcoming. I fail to agree with him on that argument. I would turn the argument on its head, as my noble friends Lord Bellwin and Lord Trafford have just done to great effect. If we do not give landlords the freedom to charge market rents and, if the market justifies it, a premium, the supply certainly will not be forthcoming. To put barriers in the way of landlords who want to get tenants into empty property—as I am sure all Members of the Committee would want£can only be detrimental to the aims of the Bill.
The noble Lord, Lord Taylor of Gryfe, took me to task about Scotland. I challenge him on that point. Can he show me where premiums have been legal under any branch of Scottish law?
Lord Taylor of Gryfe: When this matter was discussed in the Chamber we made representations on the issue on the basis of the advice and briefing of Shelter, the National Federation of Housing Associations and all the other organisations which were deeply concerned with Scottish housing legislation. It was on their representation that it was desirable to abolish key money that we managed to convince the Minister's noble friend that it was desirable and an appropriate amendment was made.
The Earl of Caithness: I think that that goes to prove my point that, although some landlords in Scotland might have been trying to charge a premium, they would not have been doing so legally

67
under any branch of Scottish law for the reasons that I gave. Premiums have never been an accepted feature of the housing market north of the Border, whereas they certainly have been south of the Border.
The noble Earl, Lord Russell, reminded the Committee about Clause 22 and the rent assessment committee's powers. Where a tenant has referred a shorthold tenancy to it, the Committee will have power to consider the level of rent. However, I would just say to the noble Lord that when it does so it will also take account of any premium that has been paid so that the tenant will not be at a disadvantage as a result.
The noble Lord, Lord Stallard, raised a point which was discussed on the first day of Committee. I did not answer it in full on that occasion and perhaps this might be an opportunity to do so. The point was why any landlord should let on an assured tenancy in preference to a shorthold tenancy.
It seems reasonable to assume that, in a situation where rents are determined according to market principles, the rent for a particular tenancy will reflect the degree of security provided by that tenancy. One would therefore expect that, other things being equal, a full assured tenancy, offering long-term security of tenure would command a somewhat higher rent than a shorthold tenancy offering only limited security of tenure. Thus, for any landlord who is serious about long-term investment in rented property and who wishes to maximise the return on his investment, one very clear incentive to opt for a full assured tenancy rather than a shorthold is the prospect of obtaining a higher rent.
A further incentive arises from the fact that, as Members of the Committee will he aware, under the extended business expansion scheme for which provision has been made in this year's Finance Bill, generous tax relief is available on investment in companies specialising in letting property on full assured tenancy terms. Properties let on shorthold terms will not be eligible for that assistance.
Perhaps I could also remind the Committee that the way the legislation is drafted will ensure that any tenancy which does not satisfy the specific requirements for a shorthold, including in particular the requirement that the landlord serve the appropriate notice at the outset, will be a full assured tenancy. There is thus no reason to fear that the tenant will be at a disadvantage in a situation—and experience shows that it is not an uncommon situation—where the landlord and tenant are unclear about the law's provisions. Failure by the landlord to comply with the statutory requirements will simply have the effect of giving the tenant the benefit of a full assured tenancy. I believe there are sufficient safeguards to provide a wide spread of types of tenancy, from full assured to shorthold tenancy.
The noble Lord, Lord Dean, said that premiums would not help to house homeless people. It is true that a homeless person who is dependent on housing benefit will not be able to take a tenancy if the landlord charges a premium. However, it should be the total supply of housing which concerns us. If that increases as a result of the Bill it is bound to help the
68
homeless. That is the difference between us on this side of the Committee and noble Lords opposite. We want to increase the amount of housing that is rented, and the more obstacles that are put in the way of the landlord or the more the free market is interfered with the fewer landlords will voluntarily come forward with houses which we know are empty and which we want them to let.
Lord Dean of Beswick: The flood of tenanted houses that according to the Minister's reply was to become available has already been reduced to a trickle. He said in one breath that there was no evidence of key money or of this practice taking place; in the next breath he said that there was evidence of down payments and it seemed to work.
The Earl of Caithness: Perhaps I might just correct that statement. I said that there was no evidence of complaint in the eight years during which premiums were permitted as a result of the old style assured tenancy.
Lord Dean of Beswick: The point has been made before that there will not be any complaints. In my view the Minister has let the cat out of the bag. It will have little or no effect at all on the homeless people the Government have been talking about all the time. On the basis of that fact and the way the argument has developed in the Committee, I see no alternative to testing the views of the Committee.
6.30 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 51) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 69; Not-Contents, 129.

DIVISION NO. 2

CONTENTS

Addington, L.

Jacques, L.

Airedale, L.

Jeger, B.

Ardwick, L.

Jenkins of Hillhead, L.

Aylestone, L.

John-Mackie, L.

Banks, L.

Kennet, L.

Blackstone, B.

Lockwood, B.

Bonham-Carter, L.

McIntosh of Haringey, L.

Brooks of Tremorfa, L.

Macleod of Borve, B.

Bruce of Donington, L.

McNair, L.

Carmichael of Kelvingrove, L.

Masham of Ilton, B.

Carter, L.

Mayhew, L.

Chandos, V.

Meston, L.

Cledwyn of Penrhos, L.

Morton of Shuna, L.

Cocks of Hartcliffe, L.

Nicol, B.

Dean of Beswick, L.

O'Neill of the Maine, L.

Diamond, L.

Oram, L.

Dormand of Easington, L.

Pitt of Hampstead, L.

Ennals, L.

Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L. [Teller.]

Ewart-Biggs, B.

Fisher of Rednal, B.

Rea, L.

Gallacher, L.

Rochester, L.

Galpern, L.

Ross of Newport, L. [Teller.]

Graham of Edmonton, L.

Russell, E.

Gregson, L.

Seear, B.

Grimond, L.

Shackleton, L.

Hampton, L.

Stallard, L.

Hanworth, V.

Stewart of Fulham, L.

Henniker, L.

Stoddart of Swindon, L.

Hooson, L.

Strabolgi, L.

Houghton of Sowerby, L.

Taylor of Blackburn, L.

Hughes, L.

Taylor of Gryfe, L.

69

Taylor of Mansfield, L.

Winchilsea and Nottingham, E.

Underhill, L.

Wallace of Coslany, L.

Winterbottom, L.

Walston, L.

Young of Dartington, L.

White, B.

NOT-CONTENTS

Ampthill, L.

Lauderdale, E.

Arran, E.

Lawrence, L.

Auckland, L.

Layton, L.

Beaverbrook, L.

Lindsey and Abingdon, E.

Bellwin, L.

Long, V.

Beloff, L.

Lucas of Chilworth, L.

Belstead, L.

Lurgan, L.

Blatch, B.

Lyell, L.

Blyth, L.

McAlpine of West Green, L

Borthwick, L.

Mancroft, L.

Boyd-Carpenter, L.

Manton, L.

Brabazon of Tara, L.

Margadale, L.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Marley, L.

Broxbourne, L.

Marshall of Leeds, L.

Caithness, E.

Merrivale, L.

Cameron of Lochbroom, L.

Mersey, V.

Carlisle of Bucklow, L.

Monk Bretton, L.

Carnegy of Lour, B.

Monson, L.

Carnock, L.

Mottistone, L.

Cathcart, E.

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Clitheroe, L.

Munster, E.

Coleraine, L.

Murton of Lindisfarne, L.

Colwyn, L.

Napier and Ettrick, L.

Constantine of Stanmore, L.

Nelson, E.

Cottesloe, L.

Newall, L.

Cox, B.

Orkney, E.

Crickhowell, L.

Orr-Ewing, L.

Davidson, V. [Teller.]

Oxfuird, V.

Denham, L. [Teller.]

Pender, L.

Dilhorne, V.

Penrhyn, L.

Dundee, E.

Peyton of Yeovil, L.

Eden of Winton, L.

Platt of Writtle, B.

Elibank, L.

Quinton, L.

Elles, B.

Radnor, E.

Elliott of Morpeth, L.

Rankeillour, L.

Fortescue, E.

Reay, L.

Fraser of Kilmorack, L.

Rees, L.

Gainford, L.

Renton, L.

Gardner of Parkes, B.

Renwick, L.

Glenarthur, L.

Rodney, L.

Goschen, V.

Romney, E.

Gray of Contin, L.

St. Germans, E.

Greenway, L.

Saltoun of Abernethy, Ly.

Gridley. L.

Sanderson of Bowden, L.

Hailsham of Saint

Shannon, E.

Marylebone, L.

Somers, L.

Halsbury, E.

Southborough, L.

Hardinge of Penshurst, L.

Stanley of Alderley, L.

Harmar-Nicholls, L.

Stevens of Ludgate, L.

Havers, L.

Strange, B.

Henley, L.

Sudeley, L.

Hesketh, L.

Swinton, E.

Hives, L.

Terrington, L.

Holderness, L.

Teviot, L.

Home of the Hirsel, L.

Thomas of Gwydir, L.

Hood, V.

Thomas of Swynnerton, L.

Hooper, B.

Torrington, V.

Hylton-Foster, B.

Trafford, L.

Jenkin of Roding, L.

Trefgarne, L.

Johnston of Rockport, L.

Trumpington, B.

Joseph, L.

Ullswater, V.

Kaberry of Adel, L.

Waldegrave, E.

Kimball, L.

Wise, L.

Kinloss, Ly.

Wynford, L.

Kitchener, E.

Young, B.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
6.30 p.m.
[Amendment No. 52 not moved.]
Clause 24 agreed to.
Schedule 3 [Agricultural worker conditions]:
Lord Hesketh moved Amendment No. 53:
Page 101, line 35, leave out ("five") and insert ("two").
The noble Lord said: This is a consequential amendment which was overlooked when the qualifying period for succession to a Rent Act or Rent (Agriculture) Act tenancy was reduced from five to two years. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Schedule 3, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 25 agreed to.
Clause 26 [Rehousing of agricultural workers etc.]:
Lord Stanley of Alderley Lord Stanley of Alderley moved Amendment No. 54:
Page 18, line 32, at end insert—
("(2) In section 28(7) of the Rent (Agriculture) Act 1976 the words 'use their best endeavours to' shall be omitted.").
The noble Lord said: Although it is mentioned in the explanatory note, and indeed my noble friend Lord Caithness stated at Second Reading that Chapter III, and in particular Clauses 24, 25 and 26, make provision for rehousing agricultural workers similar to that in the Rent (Agriculture) Act 1976, I cannot see that it does. The purpose of this amendment is to ensure that it does just that. If my noble friend Lord Caithness were in the Chamber he would remember that the situation at the moment under the Rent (Agriculture) Act is that when a farmer wishes to repossess a house for the efficient working of that farm he applies to the Agricultural Dwelling House Advisory Committee (ADHAC) to assess needs. Subject to ADHAC supporting such need, the local authority must use its best endeavours to rehouse the ex-farmworker. Despite my reservation, and indeed that of the Conservative Party, about the effectiveness of the words "best endeavours" when the Bill went through this Chamber in 1976, councils have in the great majority of cases rehoused agricultural workers eventually.
However, the situation in the future will be different. Councils will have less rented accommodation. In fact, in Anglesey the council hopes to sell off the whole of its housing stock. With the best will in the world it will not be able to offer suitable accommodation. I emphasise the word "suitable" because that is enshrined in the Rent (Agriculture) Act. Bed and breakfast accommodation would not be within the law as alternative accommodation.
I realise that the farmworker may be in a similar situation to the homeless, but I suggest that his position is worse. Whereas the local authority will still have a statutory duty to rehouse the homeless, it will need to show only that it has used its best endeavours so far as concerns farmworkers. My amendment would make it possible for the local authority to rehouse an agricultural worker whose house was needed by the business and whose rehousing had been recommended by ADHAC in line with the wishes of the majority of noble Lords and the Conservative Party when the Rent (Agriculture) Act went through this Chamber in 1976.
To put the problem in layman's language, it was relatively easy for a local authority which had its own housing to use its best endeavours to secure a house. When it has little or no housing it must surely require much more effort than before. I believe that this Bill must require some form of strengthening of the words "best endeavour". I am aware that my noble friend may well say that Clause 123 of this Bill will allow the Secretary of State to make sure that, before a council sells off its housing stock, sufficient provision is made for housing the agricultural worker. I really do not see how he, or indeed the local authority, can possibly make provision for rehousing an agricultural worker when it has only to use its best endeavours. Both could, and might, by legal interpretation of that phrase be forced to avoid this responsibility. Indeed, Clause 123 refers to the Housing Act 1985, which does not deal in that part with the need to rehouse. It deals only with the terms of the tenancy.
There is one other smaller point which affects agricultural housing. I have to ask my noble friend why Case 16 in Part II, Schedule 15 to the Rent Act 1977, is not included in Schedule 2 to this Bill? I have read the answer of my noble friend Lord Dundee as it applies to the Scottish Bill. But if this case were included in Schedule 2 it would give more flexibility than letting such tenancies be dealt with under the assured shorthold tenancy. For instance, the notice to quit under the assured shorthold tenancy is a minimum of six months; under Case 16, it is a month. Unless Case 16 is included in Schedule 2 it may well discourage landlords to let—a point made most forcefully by my noble friend Lord Bellwin on a previous amendment. I beg to move.
6.45 p.m.
Lord Carter: The noble Lord, Lord Stanley of Alderley, has pointed out that there is considerable concern in the agricultural industry about the effects of this Bill on the tied cottage situation. His right honourable friend the Minister for Housing and Planning Mr. William Waldegrave, wrote to me on this matter in response to a question. He stated:
"You also raised the question what the position of the ADHACs would be if the entire stock of a local authority were taken over by another landlord. If its stock transfers, the local authority nevertheless retains its existing responsibilities for the homeless. Its duties to take account of the recommendations of an ADHAC are allied to this. When a local authority seeks approval to a transfer, it will need to prove to the Secretary of State that it has made arrangements (probably with the new landlord) to enable it to fulfil its statutory functions, including the need to provide accommodation on the advice of the ADHAC".
I understand that to mean that the Government intend that if the local authority transfers its housing stock to a new landlord, it will place obligations on the new landlord to provide housing for farmworkers if the ADHAC requires this. We cannot find this proposal on the face of the Bill. It is left to the discretion of the local authority and of the Secretary of State as to whether this obligation will be transferred. We should like an assurance that the present arrangements will continue if the stock of housing is transferred.
The Earl of Radnor: I should very much like to support this amendment. It is a simple problem which deserves a simple answer. The simple problem has not been stated in so many words. It is that the agricultural system will fall down if workers of importance get stranded in cottages which are wanted for the person who would carry on the job which they are no longer doing. It seems very inefficient to rely on other parts of the Bill which are under some suspicion—as both the previous speakers have said—when there is such an obvious alternative open which is embodied in this amendment.
If councils had to follow this amendment, it would make absolutely certain that at the end of the day they kept enough stock of houses to deal with this problem. We are not talking about the other problems at the moment. They must keep enough houses so that the problem can be dealt with when it arises. We have heard what may happen in Anglesey. Perhaps the same problem is looming in other areas of England.
I cannot put the point too strongly. The agricultural system still depends on the tied cottage to a certain extent. I was against the old system being abolished at the time. I readily admit that the ADHAC system works extremely well. But at the end of the day it must depend on finding a house in which to put those workers when the ADHAC committee says that the cottage which they are in at the present time must be released. I strongly support the amendment.
Baroness Faithfull: When the Minister replies perhaps he will explain to me the Housing (Homeless Persons) Act. When I administered that Act, the local authority was under a duty to house homeless families in the way that suited that area the best. Does this not now apply, or does it not apply in country areas? I had thought that every local authority must by law under the Housing (Homeless Persons) Act house people who are homeless through no fault of their own. I should be very glad of clarification of that.
Lord Renton: Before my noble friend sits down I wonder whether she could clarify this point on the obligation to which she has referred with regard to homeless people. I understand that the local authorities are obliged by statute to provide immediately temporary accommodation for the homeless. However, then the homeless go on to housing lists, and have to wait their turn on housing lists before they can move from temporary to permanent accommodation. Is that not right?
Baroness Faithfull: Yes, it is right as I understand it, but if the local authority takes a long time—one, two or three years—to supply the accommodation for that family, they will remain in whatever accommodation has been found for them. We shall come to an amendment later which concerns bed and breakfast. This is why so many people are in bed and breakfast accommodation for so long—they have not been offered accommodation by the local authority.
Lord Stanley of Alderley: If I may I shall interrupt on that point because it is rather important. Under the Rent (Agriculture) Act these families will not even be put on the list. On the point made by my noble friend Lady Faithfull about the homeless, they are at least accommodated and are waiting to be put on the list. I merely want my people to wait.
Lord Ross of Newport: I have much sympathy with the amendment and interesting questions have been raised during the course of the debate. I hope that the Minister will be able to answer some of them. We read in the housing weekly bulletins, particularly those in the housing association movement, that certain councils in the country are already negotiating for the sale of the whole of their council stock. Torquay was said to be in a very advanced state of selling the lot. Gloucester was another city that was mentioned. Anglesey has a scheme of its own, and no doubt there are others.
Can we take it therefore that negotiations are taking place between the department and the authorities concerned to ensure that an obligation is being passed on to the successors in title of these properties, in some cases large housing associations, that they will have to take on board the responsibility for housing homeless people? If that is not the case, what will happen? They will have to stay in bed and breakfast accommodation for ever more and that cannot be acceptable to anybody in this place I am sure.
I agree that on the whole the system that was worked out for agricultural workers who were obliged to leave for one reason or another has worked. It certainly has in my part of the world. But it seems to be in some difficulty now. I am well aware that we have built fewer council houses in the last few years than at any time since the early 1920s. I was looking at the figures for housing associations and this year it is the worst year but two. We are building only about 20,000 units. But in spite of that and the additional burden that we are placing on the authorities to find these people homes, I still think it is right that agricultural tenants should be included under this protection. Therefore I hope the amendment will be supported.
I do not think there can be many people involved. I do not know how many people still have agricultural workers living on their farms, but we seem to be selling off every agricultural cottage in the country and every barn too. I do not think there is a single barn left in Shropshire that has not been turned into a house. Nevertheless we are not talking about very many people. I believe that the noble Earl agrees with me, but the few people we are considering ought to be included in this measure.
Lord Hesketh: This amendment would have us impose a duty on local authorities not actually to use their best endevours to provide suitable alternative accommodation for farmworkers whose landlords are seeking possession from them but actually to provide it themselves. In the majority of cases settled under Section 28(7) of the Act, it is of course the local authority who provides the suitable alternative accommodation. I think that there may be
74
underlying this amendment a concern that, as local authorities are changing their role, and gradually becoming not so much providers of housing as enablers—getting other people to provide it—the position of the agricultural worker with rights under this Act may be adversely affected. It might help if I say a few words about this.
A system was established under the Rent (Agriculture) Act 1976 whereby a farmer who wants to repossess his property from a sitting agricultural tenant, possibly a retired one, in order to house an incoming worker, may apply to the local authority to rehouse the worker. The local authority may then seek advice from the agricultural dwelling house advisory committee—I hope noble Lords will forgive me if I refer to those as ADHACs from now on—for its area, and the ADHAC will make a recommendation to the authority to rehouse the worker if it considers the farmer has a genuine agricultural need for the property in question. The system, as my noble friend Lord Radnor said, has worked very well and is much appreciated by both sides of the agricultural industry. We have decided that it should continue to be available under the new regime of assured agricultural occupancies under this Bill, and this too has been welcomed.
Since local authorities on the whole rehouse agricultural workers from their own stock, I believe there has been concern as to what might happen if a local authority were to transfer all its stock to another owner. Would it then be able to fulfil its obligations towards agricultural tenants under the Rent (Agriculture) Act and under our Bill, as various noble Lords have asked?
The answer is that the local authority's duties to displaced agricultural workers are not dissimilar to its responsibilities under the homelessness legislation. When a local authority seeks approval from the Secretary of State to a transfer of its stock, it will need to prove to him that it has made arrangements, probably with the new landlord, to fulfil its statutory functions. The Secretary of State would not allow a transfer if he thought that a new landlord, or other bodies, could not rehouse agricultural workers as necessary in accordance with this legislation.
My noble friend Lord Stanley raised the point of a local authority fulfilling its obligation. I can only re-emphasise that by saying that it would be wrong to make local authorities provide housing in every case. The phrase "best endeavours" enables the local authority to use other agencies as well. This might need to be tested in the courts, but if the local authority had not found accommodation, the court might not find that it had fulfilled its best endeavours as laid down in the Bill.
Furthermore the noble Lord, Lord Carter, felt that the relationship of ADHACs should be put on the face of the Bill. It is already on the face of the Bill in Clause 26(1)(a) and (b), which cross-relates the provisions in the Rent (Agriculture) Act with assured tenancies in the Bill.
Finally, the noble Lord, Lord Ross, was concerned about negotiations with regard to new landlords. The duties of local authorities under the Rent

75
(Agriculture) Act and this Bill are certainly being discussed with prospective landlords.
Lord Carter: It was not the role of the ADHAC that I wanted on the face of the Bill but the responsibility of the Secretary of State to ensure that the duty was carried out. Under Clause 123 the Secretary of State can taken into account any matters which he regards as relevant and we wonder whether that should not be spelt out. The matter which is relevant is the rehousing of agricultural workers.
Lord Hesketh: I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord Carter, will understand when I say that I cannot go any further than my honourable friend in another place and the letter which the noble Lord so eloquently quoted to the Committee earlier.
Lord Stanley of Alderley: I thank the Committee for the interest it has shown in this debate. I should like to comment on a few matters raised by my noble friend on the Front Bench. He said that the position of the agricultural worker was not dissimilar to that of the homeless. That is the point I am trying to make. It is dissimilar. In the case of the homeless there is a duty. In the case of the farmworker it is not a duty, and I shall explain exactly why I am worried about that duty having been weakened.
My noble friend went on to say that the position might have to be tested in the courts. That is just what I thought that the Committee was here for—to make sure that as little as possible is tested in the courts. That is what I am trying to do—otherwise it would have made my noble friend Lord Renton richer at an earlier stage!
The problem once again revolves round the words "best endeavours". I am pleased that my noble friend Lord Caithness is here because I suspect that he has heard this phrase before in past life. He has faith in the words, perhaps because they have worked in the past. But now the Government have moved the goalposts and I feel that I must alter the shot, and so must they.
I must ask my noble friend when he is on the beach this summer to read Shaw's Guide to the Rent (Agriculture) Act, 1976 by Mr. Hugh Rossi, published in 1977, pages 82 to 84. In that publication the words "best endeavours" are described. Quoted against them, among others, are two conflicting judgments. I am concerned most by the paragraph which states that because the Government are cutting back on the resources available to the local authority, the ability—indeed, the legal need—for the local authority to rehouse becomes much less. I believe that the duty becomes minimal and that worries me.
I realise that under Clause 123 it can be argued that the Secretary of State must ensure that before all the housing is disposed of those facts must be taken into account. However, looking carefully at the clause I do not believe that that is spelt out at all. As I said earlier, the clause refers to Sections 32 and 34 of the Housing Act 1985 which relate only to the terms and tenancies, not to the need to rehouse.
I hope that my noble friend will look at the matter.
76
If he cannot accept the statutory need—I understand the problem which means that he may not wish to do so—I believe that we should look at Clause 123 in order to clarify the matter and to ensure that local authorities and the Secretary of State understand the need.
I do not believe that my noble friend replied to my query about Case 16. Perhaps he would rather do so at another stage—unless he wishes to do so now. No, he does not. I shall therefore have to raise the issue on Report. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 26 agreed to.
Lord Hesketh: I suggest that this is a good time to break for dinner. I beg to move that the House do now resume.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
House resumed.

Black Country Development Corporation (Vesting of Land) (British Steel Corporation) Order 1988
  Black Country Development Corporation (Vesting of Land) (British Railways Board) Order 1988

    Black Country Development Corporation (Vesting of Land) (Central Electricity Generating Board) Order 1988
    Black Country Development Corporation (Vesting of Land) (General) Order 1988
    Black Country Development Corporation (Vesting of Land) (Borough of Sandwell) Order 1988
    Black Country Development Corporation (Vesting of Land) (Borough of Walsall) Order 1988
    7.2 p.m.
    Lord Hesketh: My Lords, I beg to move the orders standing in my name. The House may find it convenient if I speak at the same time to the other orders also in my name on the Order Paper.
    The 13 orders we are considering vest around 240 hectares of publicly owned land in two urban development corporations. Six of the orders deal with land in the Black Country Development Corporation's area and seven transfer land to the Tyne and Wear Development Corporation. We estimate that taken together, this land is worth around £16 million. The House may find it helpful if I explain some of the background to these orders.
    As your Lordships will know, urban development corporations are established under the provisions of Part XVI of the 1980 Local Government, Planning and Land Act. Their job is to secure the regeneration

    77
    of their designated areas. To achieve this they have a wide range of powers, including the powers to acquire, manage and dispose of land and property. One of the ways by which land can be obtained is by vesting orders made under Section 141 of the 1980 Act. This section empowers my right honourable friend the Secretary of State to vest in urban development corporations land owned by local authorities, statutory undertakers and other public bodies. It is orders made under these provisions that we are considering tonight.
    It was determined by a committee of this House that these orders were hybrid and therefore subject to the usual petitioning procedures. In the case of 11 of the orders no petitions were received. For the other two, holding petitions were lodged but were withdrawn following agreement between the UDCs and the bodies involved.
    I should point out that the Statutory Instruments Committee has drawn the special attention of the House to the Black Country Development Corporation (Vesting of Land) (General) Order on the ground that its drafting appears to be defective. It refers to plots on the deposited map edged with a stippled band while some narrow plots are shown wholly stippled. Although the committee accepted that there is no doubt which plots are vested by the order, nevertheless I must apologise for this oversight. I am grateful to the Statutory Instruments Committee for its agreement to proceed.
    The two urban development corporations affected by these vesting orders were set up in May, 1987. Shortly after their establishment each corporation produced a development strategy designed to bring prosperity back to the area. These strategies identified areas for early action and outlined the kinds of development the corporations were hoping to attract. In some cases it was clear that regeneration would only happen if the UDCs themselves had the land in question in their ownership. With the land in their control they will be able to assemble sites suitable for redevelopment, reclaim derelict and polluted land and service sites to make them attractive to investors. The orders currently before the House transfer such land in the ownership of public bodies.
    Vesting of publicly owned land is not the only way these UDCs will be acquiring land. Private sector land which is needed by the corporations in order to secure the regeneration will also be acquired either by agreement or, if necessary, by compulsory purchase. There may also be the need to acquire further publicly owned land in years to come.
    It is interesting that there are no outstanding petitions against any of the tranche of vesting orders my right honourable friend the Secretary of State has laid before Parliament over the last few weeks. It is also noteworthy that the orders currently before the House were debated in another place last week and were unopposed. I think all this demonstrates the goodwill there is towards the UDCs, and subject to the approval of your Lordships' House this land will vest in the UDCs and they can start the serious work of preparing it for redevelopment.
    78
    I am most grateful to the local authorities and other public bodies involved in these orders for the constructive approach they have taken which will allow the land to be transferred without delay. I am also grateful to my right honourable friends the Secretaries of State for Energy, Trade and Industry and Transport who are the co-signatories to the orders relating to the statutory undertakings they sponsor.
    Perhaps it would help your Lordships if I outlined briefly the problems which the Tyne and Wear and Black Country development corporations have been asked to address and also if I summarised the orders before us. The Tyne and Wear Development Corporation is located along the banks of the two rivers from which it takes its name. Its area has experienced the decline of traditional heavy industry and has been left with a legacy of industrial dereliction. Of the orders before the House three relate to land owned by local authorities. These orders cover 104 hectares of land owned by Newcastle City Council, North and South Tyneside borough councils and the Borough of Sunderland. The other four orders deal with a total of 17 hectares of land owned by the Port of Tyne Authority, British Coal, British Steel, British Shipbuilders and the Tyne and Wear Passenger Transport Executive.
    The Black Country Development Corporation also faces similar problems of dereliction and decline. Its area was once dominated by metal-based manufacturing industry, but the product of 200 years of industrialisation is an abandoned and neglected landscape. Much of the land is polluted and is pitted with mineshafts. Of the Black Country orders, three relate to land owned by Sandwell and Walsall metropolitan borough councils, and one of these orders also includes some land owned by the British Waterways Board and the Severn Trent Water Authority. Together the three orders cover around 105 hectares in 68 individual plots of substantially derelict contaminated or unused land. The remaining Black Country orders include 13·5 hectares of land owned by British Rail, British Steel and the Central Electricity Generating Board.
    In conclusion, both the Tyne and Wear and the Black Country development corporations have made an impressive start to the job of regenerating their areas. Projects are coming forward that will bring jobs, homes, leisure facilities and a general improvement of the environment. The prospects for both corporations are good. The vesting orders we are considering will, if approved by this House, provide the UDCs with the working capital which will help them do their job more effectively. If this House approves them this evening they will come into force tomorrow. I commend each of the orders to the House. I beg to move.
    Moved, That the Black Country Development Corporation (Vesting of Land) (British Steel Corporation) Order 1988 laid before the House on 29th June [33rd Report from the Joint Committee]; the Black Country Development Corporation (Vesting of Land) (British Railways Board) Order 1988 laid before the House on 1st July [33rd Report from the Joint Committee]; the Black Country Development

    79
    Corporation (Vesting of Land) (Central Electricity Generating Board) Order 1988 laid before the House on 4th July [33rd Report from the Joint Committee]; the Black Country Development Corporation (Vesting of Land) (General) Order 1988 laid before the House on 1st July [33rd Report from the Joint Committee]; the Black Country Development Corporation (Vesting of Land) (Borough of Sandwell) Order 1988 laid before the House on 1st July [33rd Report from the Joint Committee]; and the Black Country Development Corporation (Vesting of Land) (Borough of Walsall) Order 1988 laid before the House on 1st July [33rd Report from the Joint Committee] be approved.—(Lord Hesketh.)
    Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, we are grateful to the noble Lord for his introduction to the orders and for his candid admission for the shocking error in draftsmanship or map-making to which he confessed. He pointed out the fact that the orders were unopposed in another place. Certainly we do not wish to oppose them in this House this evening. Our understanding is that they give effect to the decision which Parliament took in May 1987 in setting up the urban development corporations. I understand that the vesting orders were made in conjunction and in full co-operation with the local authorities and public bodies concerned. On that basis it would be entirely inappropriate for us to dissent from the means having assented to the end.
    On Question, Motion agreed to.

Tyne and Wear Development Corporation (Vesting of Land) (British Shipbuilders' and British Steel Corporation) Order 1988
  Tyne and Wear Development Corporation (Vesting of Land) (City of Newcastle upon Tyne) Order 1988

    Tyne and Wear Development Corporation (Vesting of Land) (Various Local Authorities) Order 1988
    Tyne and Wear Development Corporation (Vesting of Land) (Borough of Sunderland) Order 1988
    Tyne and Wear Development Corporation (Vesting of Land) (Tyne and Wear Passenger Transport Executive) Order 1988
    Tyne and Wear Development Corporation (Vesting of Land) (Port of Tyne Authority) Order 1988
    Tyne and Wear Development Corporation (Vesting of Land) (British Coal Corporation) Order 1988
    Lord Hesketh: My Lords, I beg to move.
    Moved, That the Tyne and Wear Development Corporation (Vesting of Land) (British Shipbuilders' and British Steel Corporation) Order 1988 laid before the House on 29th June [33rd Report from the Joint Committee]; the Tyne and Wear Development Corporation (Vesting of Land) (City of Newcastle upon Tyne) Order 1988 laid before the House on 22nd June [32nd Report from the Joint Committee]; the Tyne and Wear Development Corporation (Vesting of Land) (Various Local Authorities) Order 1988 laid before the House on 22nd June [32nd Report from the Joint Committee]; the Tyne and Wear Development Corporation (Vesting of Land) (Borough of Sunderland) Order 1988 laid before the House on 22nd June [32nd Report from the Joint Committee]; the Tyne and Wear Development Corporation (Vesting of Land) (Tyne and Wear Passenger Transport Executive) Order 1988 laid before the House on 1st July [33rd Report from the Joint Committee]; the Tyne and Wear Development Corporation (Vesting of Land) (Port of Tyne Authority) Order 1988 laid before the House on 1st July [33rd Report from the Joint Committee]; and the Tyne and Wear Development Corporation (Vesting of Land) (British Coal Corporation) Order 1988 laid before the House on 1st July [33rd Report from the Joint Committee] be approved—(Lord Hesketh.)
    On Question, Motion agreed to.
    The Earl of Dundee: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now adjourn during pleasure until 8 p.m.
    Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
    [The Sitting was suspended from 7.12 to 8 p.m.]

Housing Bill
House again in Committee.
Clause 27 [Damages for unlawful eviction]:
The Earl of Caithness The Earl of Caithness moved Amendment No. 55:
Page 18, line 35, leave out ("20th November 1987") and insert ("9th June 1988").
The noble Earl said: In moving Amendment No. 55, I shall speak also to Amendment No. 56.
The new right to damages in Clause 27 is seen by the Government as a powerful deterrent to unlawful eviction. Landlords stand to lose the whole of any financial gain that they may make from getting the tenant out. In future landlords ought to think very hard before they harass or evict illegally their tenants.
The new right is at present effective in respect of actions committed from the day in November 1987 after the Bill was published. Our intention here was to deter landlords from attempting to avoid the new right to damages by getting rid of their tenants before the Bill came into force, although it would not of course be possible for a tenant to begin an action for damages under the clause until it has come into force.
The clause was however widened on report in another place on 9th June in that it was extended to

81
cover actions by superior landlords and cases where the landlord knew that the tenant might leave as a result of harassment or persistent withdrawal of services. Those amendments were welcomed on all sides. The Committee will see that, as a result, the clause has become truly retrospective. That is unacceptable and an amendment is needed.
There were two possible ways of approaching the required amendments. One would have been to attempt to pick out those elements introduced in June and to make those effective from that time, leaving the effective date of the remainder of the clause in November 1987. The alternative, which we have chosen, is to make the clause as a whole effective from June. This is much simpler to achieve and avoids creating some rather messy provisions, which would have been more difficult to understand and to use. To the extent that the provision was intended as a deterrent, nothing is lost by bringing the date forward: either it has had an effect or it has not. As I have said, no actions can yet have been started under the provision. We all find truly retrospective legislation repugnant, and I hope therefore that the Committee can agree with these amendments. I beg to move.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I confess that there is a fine balance to be struck between the abhorrent principle of retrospection and the effectiveness of the legislation. When the Committee debated the matters in preliminary form last Thursday, the Government recognised the necessity for protection against harassment and eviction. One of the ways in which they sought to give effect to that undertaking was to introduce the measures as of the date of first publication of the Bill.
I am hardly surprised that no actions have been taken against landlords under the legislation: it has not yet taken effect so there could not have been any actions. That is not an effective argument. If, as I understand it, the Minister is saying that there have not been a significant number of cases where action would have been taken if the Bill had been enacted, them we are content to see the dates changed as proposed. I am happy to take the Minister's silence as confirmation that he has not been notified of a significant number of cases that would have required action had the Bill been in force.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
The Earl of Caithness The Earl of Caithness moved Amendment No. 56:
Page 18, line 40, leave out ("20th November 1987") and insert ("9th June 1988").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 56A not moved.]
Lord McIntosh of Haringey Lord McIntosh of Haringey moved Amendment No. 57:
Page 19, line 5, leave out ("calculated to") and insert ("(or omits to do acts) which individually or cumulatively").
The noble Lord said: I spoke to Amendment No. 57 in introducing Amendment No. 1 earlier in Committee. As a result of a number of procedural discussions, it became clear that it would be better if Amendments Nos. 57, 60, 61, 62 and 63 were
82
considered together without the paving amendment that was originally tabled.
I apologise to the Committee for tabling but not moving Amendments Nos. 56A and 57A. They were put down as evidence of the concern that the Law Society has felt about the adequacy of provisions for protection against eviction. As to the reason for not moving them, it makes for a cleaner debate to concentrate on the other amendments. If the slightly less positive proposals that we have put forward do not find favour with the Committee, we can return to the amendments to the Law Society later.
When speaking last Thursday to Amendment No. 1, with which these amendments were grouped, I spent some time on the activities of a certain number of landlords, including one landlord in particular, who not only is guilty of harassment over a considerable number of years but glories in his harassment activities. I undertook not to repeat my arguments in regard to that person or indeed the arguments echoed by a number of Members of the Committee.
I want to concentrate on five points in introducing the amendments that I believe would substantially improve the effectiveness of the Government's intention to provide good protection for tenants against harassment. It is not necessary to do this in any emotional sense; they are specific amendments which need to be considered seriously and I should like to have the Government's specific reaction to them. I hold myself available for any subsequent discussion that may be necessary if the Government think that that is the right way to approach the matter.
The first change in regard to Amendment No. 57, repeated in Amendment No. 61, is that, in addition to acts, the concept of omission to do an act is brought in. Those who follow such matters and know of the relationship between landlord and tenant will realise that, although there are clearly acts of harassment inimical to the interests of a tenant that can be carried out by a landlord, on many occasions a landlord omits to do something that he has contracted to do which is important to secure the tenant's peaceful and happy occupation of the premises.
Not being a lawyer, I have consulted lawyers and I am assured that the omission to do an act cannot be assumed to be included in doing an act. Therefore, there is something substantial added to the concept of an act of harassment by the omission of an obligation which in itself helps to constitute harassment. In that sense, I hope that the Government will agree that the amendment is a useful addition to the effectiveness of their proposals.
The second is the concept of individually or cumulatively. As Chapter IV is set down, an act can be said to be contributing to harassment and is judged on its own merits as to whether that individual act is looked at as something so bad that it falls within the scope of Chapter IV. I suggest to the Committee that we need to go further than that. The combination and the addition of a large number of acts which by themselves might be relatively small and not worthy of complaint, when combined could become worthy of complaint and add up to

83
harassment, whereas once they could be safely ignored. I suggest that the concept of the cumulative weight of a whole series of what might individually be small acts is a useful addition. It assists in the protection of tenants and should be included in the Bill.
The third point, which arises directly from some of my remarks on Thursday about Mr. Hoogstraten, relates to the inadequacy of restricting the law on acts of harassment to landlords and their agents. The point I made, echoed by other noble Lords, is that all sorts of other people who are neither the landlords nor their agents can take part in harassment. The most common example is putting in noisy neighbours who are certainly not the landlords or their agents but who are put in with the deliberate intention of winkling out the tenant. These omissions to act ought to be counted as part of the evils to which this chapter of Part I of the Bill is addressed.
Fourthly, in the Bill we have the words "calculated to". These bring into the law which will have to interpret and implement this Bill the whole concept of the intention of the landlord or his agent as part of the necessary proof of an act or programme of acts of harassment. I suggest to the Committee that the concept of intention is very much more difficult to prove than the straightforward fact that these acts are taking place and can be seen to help to deprive the tenant of his rights and of his peaceful enjoyment of the premises. Therefore, the words "calculated to" and the concept of intention by the landlord and his agents do not help to make this part of the Bill effective and it would be better without them.
Related to that is my fifth point. The Bill states that the landlord knows or has reasonable cause to believe that the acts are leading to harassment. I suggest that, whether or not he knows it, it should be a matter of fact that the acts he is doing are leading to harassment and are depriving the tenant of his rights. These too should be taken into account in considering whether or not the landlord is acting illegally.
I undertook not to repeat the many examples from which it would be possible for me to show that these are not theoretical objections to the drafting of the Bill. They are objections which are backed up time and again by the practical experience of tenancy welfare officers in local authorities, of solicitors, law practices, law advisory bodies, citizens' advice bureaux, and so on. Over and over again there have been many examples of the inadequacy of the existing law to deal with the widespread but far from universal—I am not suggesting that a majority of landlords do this—harassment where there is a strong financial incentive for the landlord to seek to remove a tenant.
Surely it must be right for us, in welcoming the Government's moves in this direction, to endeavour to make those moves as effective as possible. I believe that my amendments make the provisions more effective and that they deserve serious consideration and I therefore commend them to the Committee. I beg to move.
8.15 p.m.
Lord Coleraine: The noble Lord has opened up a wide ranging possibility for debate. He is, I believe, speaking to amendments in his name to Clauses 27 and 29. I suspect he is also inviting us to look at the other two amendments which emanate from the Law Society.
I should like to consider the word "calculated". It seems to me that much of the problem covered by this series of amendments arises from that word. In our debates last Thursday my noble friend Lord Renton drew attention to the fact that "calculated" could be interpreted as "likely" or as "intended". His view was that it was interpreted as "intended". That is the view taken by the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh.
The word is used in the Protection from Eviction Act 1977 and I believe its use in this Bill directly follows from that. The editors of Halsbury's Laws of England suggest that generally the word would be intended to mean "likely" rather than "intended". I ask my noble friend the Minister whether it would be possible to have the Bill use the words "either likely or intended". I believe that the word "calculated" is confusing the Committee and is likely to confuse practitioners and others who look at the Bill when it becomes law.
There is a considerable distinction to be made between the proposed amendments to Clause 27, with which I have some sympathy, and those to Clause 29. Clause 27 deals with civil damages and in a sense, therefore, it is probably right that the standards of liability that affect a landlord in the case of civil damages may be less onerous than those which apply in criminal proceedings which are covered in Clause 29. However, it is difficult to see how one can allow a tenant to have the automatic right to these damages in the case cited by the noble Lord of a whole series of cumulative acts or omissions. I say that because the remedies available to a tenant which he can bring himself are immense. They are set out in Clause 28 and include the right to the profit which the landlord might have made if he gets possession wrongly under Clause 27.
There is here a grave difficulty in that a whole series of complaints can be made by a tenant which relate perhaps to damp or to the roof falling into disrepair and not being remedied. These are perfectly serious problems and the tenant has remedies under the existing law to set them right. If, by these amendments he is enabled merely to sit by and ultimately to move out, then one has a difficult and unsatisfactory position. The landlord may find—without really knowing what the complaints of the tenant are and having had no proper opportunity to put matters right or direct his mind to the consequences which might follow under this clause as amended—that the tenant leaves having done very little to put things right and then claims colossal damages under Clause 28. I believe that there is room for getting this situation right and possibly for change. I hope that the noble Lord will ultimately take the amendments back, think again, and return with them at a later stage.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: I am not happy with the amendment as suggested, or with harassment. I believe the Bill will make it easier for people to obtain legitimate possession in legitimate cases. It is creating kinds of tenancies that, as I have said before, should make available a wider rental market. I believe it is even more important that in such cases which remain protected people have adequate protection.
I support the amendment as regards reference to the word "calculated". In any court of law it is extremely difficult to prove how calculated a matter is. At the moment I am helping a lady whose landlord is attempting to remove her from her basement flat. He will be able to do so because he is a resident landlord; he will be able to get a court order. However, the way in which it is being done is so unpleasant that it almost constitutes harassment. For example, the right to use the garden has been withdrawn and washing cannot be put outside which was previously possible during all the years she has lived in the flat. Children are pushed when they enter the flat.
When the lady wrote to the solicitor asking that at least until the court determined the action she should be able to remain there in peace and not suffer any degree of harassment, a reply was received which I consider to be almost harassment in itself. The letter asks whether she is making defamatory remarks about the client. The poor woman is being terrified. She was not born in this country; she does not know what is meant by defamation. I am unhappy with the word "calculated". I do not support the amendment: I wonder whether that word can be removed and the sentence stand on its own without it. In a court of law to prove calculated harassment is very difficult. The acts should speak for themselves whether they are serious or of a less serious character. The accumulation or combination of many different events should speak for themselves. Although I do not support the amendment, I believe it is very important that this aspect of the Bill should be strong.
Lord Monson: As I have not agreed very often so far with the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh of Haringey, during the passage of this Bill, I am pleased to say that I have considerable sympathy with him as regards Amendment No. 57 though, as the noble Lord, Lord Coleraine, said, the drafting may be technically defective. I should like it modified by the acceptance of Amendment No. 57B or some later variation of it which would provide a safeguard. It is a great pity that Amendments Nos. 60 to 63 have been grouped together because they are all different. They do not hang or fall together. I believe that Amendments Nos. 60 and 61 may be acceptable though I am not at all sure. Certainly, Amendments Nos. 62 and 63 go much too far. It is a pity that they are being taken together; they should be discussed individually.
The Earl of Caithness: I should like to start our debate on Chapter IV of Part I of the Bill dealing with protection from eviction by stressing once again that the Government are unequivocally opposed to harassment and illegal eviction by landlords. We are determined to see that the law deals effectively with
86
landlords who behave unacceptably and that their victims are properly compensated. The provisions of this part of the Bill are an earnest of our intentions. We also propose to discuss with the Magistrates' Association whether there is any guidance which it can give to its members about appropriate penalties for those who are convicted. We intend to issue advice to local authorities about the use of their prosecution, control order and compulsory purchase powers in relation to cases of harassment.
Clause 27 provides a new civil right to damages for tenants and licensees who are illegally evicted or driven out by harassment. The right is in addition to, not a replacement of, rights to damages which tenants may have under the existing law. The novel feature is that the damages are to be based on the landlord's financial gain from evicting the occupier; that is, the difference in the capital value of the premises with and without the occupier. In extreme cases the sums involved could run into tens of thousands of pounds. We recognise this and we see Clause 27 as a significant deterrent to harassment and illegal eviction. The clause has already been significantly strengthened by amendment in another place.
Although I have some sympathy with the aims of the first amendment, Amendment No. 57, in our opinion goes too wide. The potential damages under this clause are so substantial that a reasonably exacting criterion is essential. The amendment could catch virtually any act or omission by a landlord or his agent which could cause someone to leave their home, even acts of a comparatively trivial nature.
First, it seems to me to be unacceptable to omit the word "calculated" in subsection (2)(b). If the landlord's behaviour was not designed to interfere with the occupier's peace or comfort, he ought not to be liable to damages. As regards the word "calculated" itself, the Government's view is that the word has an everyday meaning. It implies some intention on the landlord's part. So the Government agree with my noble friends Lord Coleraine, Lord Renton and Lady Gardner of Parkes and also with the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh of Haringey. Here, the word means intended. We shall certainly consider whether there is a case for amending the Bill to clarify the word in this respect. It seems clear enough to me at the moment but I shall look at it between now and another stage.
Second, the extension of the clause to cover omissions would be very far-reaching. The result could be that if the landlord failed to keep the dwelling in good repair so that, for instance, the roof leaked badly causing the tenant to leave, there could again be a right to damages under Clause 27. No one disputes the tenant's need to have adequate remedies where his landlord fails to carry out repairs and this Bill increases them. But surely, damages on this scale are quite disproportionate.
The third element in the amendment—the concept of the cumulative effect of the landlord's acts—I would argue is already present in the clause. Although harassment is a very unpleasant phenomenon, we should not react to it by placing on the statute book a new tort which is so wide that it

87
penalises by disproportionately heavy damages behaviour which is innocent or, even if undesirable, does not merit this sort of treatment. Surely, if the landlord did not intend to interfere with the tenant's peace or comfort he ought not to be liable for damages.
I turn to Amendments Nos. 60 to 63. It is already an offence under the Protection from Eviction Act 1977 to harass a residential occupier with the intention of causing him to leave his home. There have been comparatively few prosecutions for that offence and disproportionately few have led to convictions. One of the reasons for this appears to be that though it may be possible to prove that the person committed the alleged acts, it is often much more difficult to show conclusively that he intended to make the tenant leave. Clause 27 therefore provides an additional offence where a landlord or his agent committed acts calculated to interfere with the peace or comfort of a residential occupier or withdrew services and in either case knew that the occupier would leave as a result.
We believe that the new offence should be easier to prove. The tests which have to be applied are less severe than under Section 1(3) of the 1977 Act. But in drafting the new offence we were very conscious of the risk that, if we made it too wide, we could quite easily penalise innocent behaviour or behaviour which, although anti-social, certainly ought not to be criminal. I am afraid that that is exactly the trap which the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh of Haringey, has, at least in our view, fallen into with these amendments. Amendment No. 60 enables the offence to be committed by any person not just the landlord or his agent. That we believe is too indiscriminate and carries too big a risk that third parties would be convicted for behaviour which ought not to fall within this—noise, for instance; the neighbour who plays loud music. That may be anti-social but there are ways of dealing with it other than by this offence, which attracts potentially heavy penalties.
Perhaps I may recap on what those might be. There is remedy under Sections 58 and 59 of the Control of Pollution Act. There is remedy under Section 84 of the Rent Act 1984. There is remedy under Section 98 of the Rent Act 1977. There is also civil action. Those are the alternative powers to the draconian ones that the noble Lord wishes to include by his amendment.
Amendment No. 61 is unacceptable for similar reasons, reasons which also applied in the case of the noble Lord's amendment to Clause 27 and which I explained in that context. Amendment No. 62 will not do because its effect could be that a person could commit an offence where he did not intend to make the occupier leave, did not know that he would leave and could not have had reasonable cause to believe that he would leave. Under those circumstances it seems hard to defend.
As for the fourth amendment, Amendment No. 63, that deletes the landlord's defence in a case where he had reasonable grounds for withdrawing services; for instance, in a case where the electricity or water supply had to be turned off while building works were carried out. I find it difficult to see how such an amendment can be justified.
88
My noble friend Lord Coleraine was right to point out the difficulties for landlords posed by some of the proposals of the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh of Haringey, but I quite appreciate the strong feeling throughout the Committee of getting this part of the Bill right. There is no doubt that the Government have introduced new powers greater than any other Government have sought for the protection of the tenant against harassment and eviction. What is important is that we get the wording precisely right to suit all Members of the Committee without going too wide to catch innocent people, and I should be happy to discuss that between now and Report stage.
8.30 p.m.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I am grateful to the Minister for his explanation. I am grateful also to those on the Government Benches and to the noble Lord, Lord Monson, for their support for individual parts of my amendments although I do not claim that any of them have supported the whole series. I must point out that the amendments are framed within the context and in the spirit of the Government's own clauses and within the spirit of Chapter IV of Part I. We have not attempted in any way to change the definition of what harassment is about. The phrase,
"interfere with the peace or comfort of the residential occupier or members of his household",
is one with which we are content. We have not attempted to change it in any way. If we had done so, the Minister's criticisms of our amendments would perhaps have had more force. Similarly, we have not attempted in any way to change the concept of damages as set out in Clause 28. We believe that these are good definitions.
We think that significant changes are brought about by the concept of penalising the landlord to the extent of the financial gain which he might make from the tenant's vacating the premises. We have not criticised that and in this respect as well we do not propose any fundamental change to the series of new proposals being put forward by the Government. On more than one occasion we have expressed our appreciation of the Government's intentions in this matter. We are suggesting that, just as previous legislation has not stopped harassment, there are still significant risks that the Bill as drafted will have loopholes which will allow landlords to get away with harassment despite the good intentions of the draftsman in preparing this chapter of Part I.
The noble Lord, Lord Coleraine, made a fair point when he said that it would be necessary to ensure that the landlord was notified about what was being complained of. We have made the same point when talking about possession in other parts of the Bill. I am glad that the noble Lord thinks that a similar concept is appropriate to protect landlords. I hope that he will also support us when we use that concept in respect of tenants to ensure that they should be properly notified of what complaint there is as a basis for the landlord seeking to gain possession of the premises by law.
The noble Baroness, Lady Gardner, whose efforts in this matter are well appreciated by her neighbours and friends, made valid points about the adequacy of

89
the existing legislation. I am grateful to her for them. I am particularly interested in the arguments as to whether "calculated" means "likely" or "intended". It has occurred to me that if it does, as I thought, mean "intended", it ought to say so and that "calculated is ambiguous. Perhaps the Minister ought to think again about that. Whether or not it means "likely", my amendments are defective in not putting in "likely" and leaving it to say that it is the effect rather than the likely effect which is the true test. My amendments would have been stronger from my point of view if I had taken out "calulated" and put in "likely". To that extent I recognise that my amendments are defective.
These are complex matters on which many people both inside and outside the Chamber have far greater experience than others. However, it is common experience over the years that landlords have greater power to command legal services than tenants and that generally speaking the law tends to be interpreted by the courts in favour of landlords rather then the other way round. Therefore any additional protection which does not challenge the Government's definitions of harassment—as we are not challenging them—or the concept of damages—which we are not challenging—ought to be treated seriously. However, because of the defects in the individual pieces of wording, which we recognise, it would be better if I took the amendments away and accepted the Minister's invitation to talk to him again about how to produce something which could be acceptable to all sides of the Committee and would meet the widely expressed concerns about the drafting of the Bill.
I recognise that it is a difficult matter to get right the first time. I think we all want the same thing and I am convinced that we want this part of the Bill to be effective. I am convinced also that some of the concepts which I introduced in the amendments will in the end commend themselves to the House at a later stage of the Bill. It is on that basis that I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 57A not moved.]
Lord Meston moved Lord Meston moved Amendment No. 57B:
Page 19, line 12, leave out ("shall") and insert ("may").
The noble Lord said: In moving this amendment I wish to echo appreciation of the Government's welcome concern about harassment in general and unlawful eviction in particular. The purpose of this amendment is to express certain misgivings about the provisions for additional damages for unlawful eviction and to invite a critical re-examination by the Government of the proposals.
Clauses 27 and 28 prescribe an additional measure of damages in unlawful eviction cases, the measure prescribed being the difference between the value of the premises with the tenant in occupation and the value with the tenant out of occupation. The basic concern underlying the amendment is that the Bill makes that measure of damage a mandatory head of damage, additional to the other liabilities which the landlord may very properly and rightly have to pay as a result of his wrongful act.
In looking at this section of the Bill one must not lose sight of the fact that the courts will continue—I mean the civil court in this respect—to award ordinary damages and aggravated damages to compensate tenants for whatever injuries they have suffered. They may be personal injuries; financial loss and expense; damage to property; damage for disruption and inconvenience, and so on.
Similarly, one must not overlook, as I think in some ways the Bill does, the fact that the courts have already been well used to awarding what are called exemplary damages when landlords behave outrageously. The difference between what happens now and what will happen under the provisions of the Bill is that at present such awards are made but they are made on a discretionary basis, the courts being prepared to recognise that the landlord's conduct—however outrageous—is not always designed to make a profit.
In practice, one knows this from many years of arguing in county courts and pleading such cases, wrongful evictions often arise as the culmination of years of mutual provocation—it is often six of one and half a dozen of the other. As the law stands, at least, provocation by the victim can reduce or extinguish the victim's entitlement to exemplary damages without affecting his entitlement to ordinary damages. It is not clear that that will happen under the provisions of this Bill.
Therefore the purpose of the amendment is to invite the Government to think twice about what seems to be a somewhat arbitrary and inflexible extra measure of damage which may not always produce a just result. I think that the Government should recognise what the courts are able to do at present and preserve the discretion of the courts in awarding damages.
There are several further points I should like to make. Although the expression I have used is "arbitrary", it is also fair to say that such damages will be variable to a great degree between different parts of the country. The difference between the tenanted value and the vacant possession value might be very great in London—however modest the property—especially if one looks at Clause 28(2), which requires the court not to consider the part of the property from which the occupier has been evicted but the value of the whole building. That will punish the landlord, and perhaps Members of the Committee may think, "A jolly good thing too!" However, it could—I emphasise the word, "could"—far exceed the true measure of the evicted tenant's loss, not forgetting that that person will still be able to obtain his ordinary compensatory damages. Indeed, if he is rehoused, as he may well be, by the local authority, it will be the local authority which will suffer the ultimate loss and which is arguably more entitled—or as much entitled—to damages than the tenant.
There are one or two other factors which I should like to mention. Most serious cases of eviction are likely to have been dealt with very severely—usually, that is, with a heavy fine but, sometimes, with imprisonment—in the criminal courts. However, under the provisions of this Bill the civil court seems

91
to have no discretion to take that fact into account, one way or another. There is a risk of a double penalty. Indeed, it occurs to me—although I may be quite wrong about this—that if the landlord causes three occupiers to be evicted simultaneously, each of those occupiers will be entitled to the whole of the unlocked value of the property under the provisions of the Bill as I read it.
There are also other concerns. The clause may encourage tenants with perhaps rather more doubtful cases to undertake litigation because they have a lot to gain. As the Minister said, the potential range of damages under this clause is substantial. If it is true that tenants will be encouraged to litigate, when they do so landlords frequently counterclaim and the stakes will be very high. The courts will then be forced to hear a replay of years of bickering between the two parties. Indeed, if the tenant proves unjustified in pursuing his case to court and loses, it is probable that the successful landlord will be unable to recover his costs.
One other factor which should be borne in mind is that this clause, and the proposed method of assessing damages, will inevitably require both sides to produce to the court costly valuation evidence. It is likely that the Legal Aid Fund will have to pay, at least initially, for the tenant to employ a valuer to produce a figure. The landlord will then call in his valuer to produce his figure—and, if Members of the Committee think that lawyers thrive on disagreement, so, too, do valuers. The court will need such evidence in order to quantify what the Bill requires it to do.
Therefore I venture to criticise these two clauses because they take away from the courts the discretion that they presently have and they fail to recognise what the courts already do. Further, one final aspect is missing, and that is an aspect which would go a good way towards obviating the need for this particular measure. If the Bill provided a direct power in the courts to reinstate tenants without further ado—subject of course to any third party rights—then that would strike at the root of this form of harassment and take away the need for the kind of litigation which I have suggested may well arise. I beg to move.
8.45 p.m.
Lord Monson: As Members of the Committee will realise, I am not a lawyer and there is no way I could hope to emulate the brilliant and comprehensive exposition of the amendment made by the noble Lord, Lord Meston. However, as a layman, there are two things that I have always understood about the law. The first is that in every normal civil action the court is empowered to reduce the damages which would otherwise have been awarded to the extent that the plaintiff has contributed by his own irresponsibility, stubbornness or malevolence to the unfortunate situation in which he finds himself. On the latter point—that is to say, malevolence, or unscrupulous behaviour—to which the noble Lord, Lord Meston, has alluded, I am sure that even the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, would concede that on
92
occasion you can find wicked tenants as well as wicked landlords. Why, therefore, should the courts be prevented in this one instance alone from reducing damages on these rare occasions?
The second point I should like to make is this. The courts are always meticulous and painstaking and if Parliament makes it clear in the statute that it wishes courts to award full damages—except in those rare cases—to the plaintiff, then the courts will automatically act in a careful and responsible manner. It is possible that the word "may" will not adequately convey to the court the degree to which Parliament wishes full damages to be the norm, rather than the exception. Therefore it may be that the noble Lord, Lord Meston, will wish to withdraw the amendment at the end of the debate and come back at a later stage with something a little more complex to cover that point, but I hope that the Government and the Committee will concede how just and "commonsensical" the principles of the amendment are.
Lord Jenkin of Roding: As a young barrister's pupil, I was the tenant of rented accommodation and had occasion with my wife—recently wedded—to tangle with the landlady of the flat in which we lived. I suppose that for a week or so we were subject to harassment. My wife could not hang the nappies out in the garden; we were not allowed to use the indoor loo, but had to use the outdoor one, and so on. It was all a row which blew over. But the very strong impression of unfairness and of impotence which a tenant feels in such circumstances has never left me. Accordingly, when discussing the measures that were to be included in the Bill, which began when I was Secretary of State for the Environment, I was foremost among those arguing that Part I should be accompanied by firmer rules and provisions against harassment. I was therefore pleased to see not only the strength of the provisions that had been written into the Bill when it was introduced but the amendments moved and accepted in another place.
No one should for one moment doubt my determination to ensure that the law should operate stringently to prevent harassment of tenants. I listened to the noble Lord, Lord Meston—I was a pupil in chambers with his father, although he was not my pupil master—and I believe that there is something in the case that he and the noble Lord, Lord Monson, have made. I do not believe that they have the wording right. The substitution of "may" for "shall" leaves the provision too much at large and effectively waters down the stringency of the provision to make it far less effective than the Government and I would wish it to be. However, at the same time it is open to the creation of injustice if a court is to have no way of assessing the conduct of the parties in the circumstances of the case and is bound to impose exemplary damages as provided for in Clause 28.
I therefore hope that the noble Lord, in the light of what is said, will feel it right not to press his amendment to a Division. If he did, I should be unable to support him. At the same time, I believe that there is a case to be made for leaving the court some opportunity to use its discretion along the lines

93
that if the damages, as assessed under Clause 28, are manifestly unjust in all the circumstances of the case, some lesser sum my be awarded. There may be some word which makes it clear that in wholly exceptional circumstances the full rigour of the clause should not apply.
I doubt whether that would ever amount to an invitation to a landlord to harass a tenant and procure an illegal eviction; but it would allow a court to take account of the other circumstances. Noble Lords have mentioned the wholly unreasonable tenant who over a long period has engaged in thoroughly provocative and anti-social behaviour. It can never be six of one and half a dozen of the other, as the noble Lord, Lord Meston, suggested, because one man will have lost his dwelling. Nevertheless there are circumstances in which a court may feel it right not to visit the full rigour of the clause on the landlord. In his discussions the noble Lord, Lord Meston, may like to embody that possibility with a view to bringing an agreed amendment before this Chamber at a later stage. Something needs to be done if fairness is to operate in this case: Although the amendment is not the way to achieve it, we may have an opportunity to look at the matter again to see whether we can achieve the objective in some other way.
Lord Trafford: I have sympathy with the amendment, because it always concerns me when a court does not have freedom of action with regard to a penalty that it imposes; in other words, the penalty is mandatory. That has two effects. The first is that a court is much less likely to find for the aggrieved party merely because in its view the penalty is totally disproportionate. It may therefore be inclined to say that it is better not to impose a massive penalty on a landlord and to leave the tenant as he is because everyone will have had a warning. Thus the purpose of the clause would be defeated and the law would be brought into disrepute, which is never a terribly good thing to happen.
My second point is that it would seem to be reasonable that, as the old saying goes, the punishnment should fit the crime. In other words, the level of damages (the penalty, so-called) should match the degree of harassment. I hear that word pronounced with the stress on the first syllable more commonly in this place. I prefer the stress to be on the second syllable, though I am told that that has an American touch about it. Be that as it may, one should, if possible, encourage a court's capacity to assess the situation on its merits. Again, like my noble friend Lord Jenkin of Roding, I do not believe that "may" is the correct word. It is too wide. I hope that my noble friend the Minister will look again at this matter. We could shoot ourselves through the foot with this type of clause as it stands, but at the same time I believe that the amendment may be drawn too widely.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Trafford, about the pronunciation of "harassment" with the accent on the second syllable. It has a much more pejorative rasp and is clearly much more effective.
Lord Jenkin of Roding: I always took the view that if Mr. Rachman had not been called Rachman but had been called McIntosh we would never have heard of him.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: The noble Lord does not know about anti-Scots prejudice. I assure the noble Lord, Lord Meston, that I recognise that there are tenants who behave badly. That is human nature. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin, that we must preserve the thrust of Chapter IV. We must do nothing to weaken it unnecessarily or damagingly. I fear that to change "shall" to "may" runs the risk of the courts on the whole going over to the other side. However, it is only a matter of days since I was defending strongly the concept of the court's discretion. If we reached the stage where a court would not convict a landlord because the law was too rigid, we should not achieve our objective. To that limited extent, although I do not support the amendment, there is a point at which the Government would do well to reconsider.
Lord Coleraine: The noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, referred to a conviction and my noble friend Lord Trafford talked about the punishment fitting the crime. Surely, we are here dealing with civil proceedings. It has occurred to me during the debate that there is something inherently wrong in any tenant having the benefit of what may be colossal damages. I cannot help wondering whether my noble friend will consider bringing back this provision as part of a later clause to amend the Protection from Eviction Act, because it seems to me that it is a crime rather than a civil matter.
The Earl of Caithness: The clause provides that where a tenant is eligible for damages in respect of a liability other than the loss of his right to the accommodation, he may claim separate damages for the liability. However, he may not claim damages for the loss of his right both under this clause and under other provisions. He cannot obtain damages for the same loss twice, but he may obtain damages for different reasons. That clarifies a point to which the noble Lord, Lord Meston, alluded when he said that a tenant may receive more than one set of damages for the same item.
The amendment is intended to suggest that if a tenant is eligible for damages it should be at the discretion of a court as to whether he receives them. We do not believe that to be an acceptable view. The whole point of the clause is that it introduces a penalty on the landlord who engages in harassment and illegal eviction. If the landlord's behaviour is such that the tenant finds that he is entitled to damages, then he should have them.
Although I understand what my noble friend Lord Jenkin of Roding said, one reason for choosing the word "shall" rather than "may" and allowing the court discretion is that under the present law the damages awarded have been derisory. The largest award of damages recently recorded in a case of extreme harassment was about £ 4,000. That sum simply did not reflect the tenant's loss. We want the courts to award damages which fully compensate the

95
tenant, not to be able to reduce the sum to a point where every landlord can afford to harass, knowing that the gain he makes from his illegal action will outweigh the penalty imposed by the courts.
The noble Lord, Lord Meston, suggested that the tenant could obtain damages both under Clause 27 and under the present law. As I explained, that is something that he cannot do. The noble Lord shakes his head. Doubtless he will explain why I am wrong in my assumption in due course.
The noble Lord, Lord Monson, felt that the damages might be excessive for an awkward tenant. It may be the case that an awkward tenant provokes his landlord. There may be fault on both sides, but in the end the landlord who harasses a tenant out of his property has committed a criminal offence. It is a criminal offence, I say to my noble friend Lord Coleraine. The fact that the tenant may have been awkward is not relevant at that stage. I put it to the noble Lord, Lord Meston, that if we undermine the strength of this clause by providing that in certain circumstances the landlord may not have to pay this penalty, we are affecting its power as a deterrent. We do not want to weaken this clause and I suggest to Members of the Committee that the noble Lord's amendment does just that.
I understand the point made by my noble friend Lord Jenkin that there might be a case for discretion in some areas. That is obviously a point I should like to look at between now and another stage. To have the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, agreeing with my noble friend is too much to tolerate at this hour of night!
9 P.m.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I thought that my measure of agreement was very limited indeed. Perhaps I may say in response to what the noble Earl has just said that I agree entirely with him. I think he has provided a very satisfactory answer to all the criticisms which have been made of this part of the Bill.
Lord Meston: I am most grateful to all Members of the Committee who have spoken on the amendment and for the authoritative, albeit qualified, support of the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin. I am glad he survived both his pupillage and his harassment—however that should be correctly pronounced.
The point I was making about not excluding other remedies is that as I read Clause 27(4), it provides that any liability arising under the clause shall be in addition to any liability arising apart from the clause. I shall of course be corrected if I am wrong but I think that is meant to provide that, although this proscribes a measure of exemplary damages, it does not rule out the ordinary damages which the evicted tenant can also recover and would not rule out aggravated damages.
The concern of Members of the Committee expressed in this debate is at the rigidity of the provisions. They provide potentially very substantial damage to a tenant. I suspect that many of these cases will be taken way out of the present county court
96
jurisdiction. The provisions disregard the tenant's duty to mitigate; they will encourage litigation. As the noble Lord, Lord Coleraine, has said, we shall run the risk of overlooking the criminal nature of this measure. However, I am the first to accept that the form of this amendment is not particularly subtle and some more thought needs to go into it. For that reason, I do not press the amendment and beg leave to withdraw it.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Meston Lord Meston moved Amendment No. 57C:
Page 19, line 27, leave out ("begun") and insert ("concluded").
The noble Lord said: The purpose of Clause 27(6)(a) is presumably to provide an incentive to the landlord to reinstate the tenant. I have already said that I much prefer to see in this Bill an express power in the court to direct reinstatement. It would take away much of the debate, I suspect. However, this amendment is to suggest that if reinstatement occurs, not by the beginning of any legal proceedings but rather by the end of those proceedings, the landlord should in those circumstances be able to avoid the extra damages for which these clauses provide. The factual position then will be that the tenant will be back in his home, and the landlord is likely to have had to pay all his costs together with the other damages for which he is liable.
The reality of life is that it is not until the door of the court is reached that the wrongful party sees the error of his ways and sees his position with clarity. If the incentive which is presumably meant to be created by subsection (6)(a) is to be of use, it would he more useful if it were prolonged and remained in existence right up until the end of those proceedings. I beg to move.
The Earl of Caithness: To begin with I did not think that I liked this amendment very much. However, I thought that the noble Lord had a good point in his argument. It is something which I should like to look at. I do not see why a landlord should necessarily suffer a claim for damages if there has been a reconciliation during the period of the court hearing and the tenant is back in the accommodation. Perhaps I may be allowed to look at it between now and another stage and meanwhile talk to the noble Lord.
Lord Meston: I am very grateful for the noble Earl's quick response and for his open mind. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Meston Lord Meston moved Amendment No. 57D:
Page 19, line 38, after ("had") insert ("permanently").
The noble Lord said: Clause 27(7)(a) provides a defence to a landlord, as regards the liability provided by this part of the Bill, if he is able to prove,
"that he believed, and had reasonable cause to believe that the residential occupier had ceased to reside in the premises in question".
This amendment seeks to tighten up the wording so that the landlord is not allowed to get away with such a defence without being required to consider the possibility that a tenant's absence might only be

97
temporary, albeit somewhat prolonged. It may be the case that tenants go into hospital, are working abroad, taking a prolonged holiday or are away for some other reason. That situation shouild not be allowed to provide a loophole if this part of the Bill is to be of value as the Government hope and the Committee should bear in mind the reservations I have already expressed in this regard. In much legislation the words "reside" or "residence" are usually qualified: examples are "habitual residence", "continual residence" or "permanent residence". It would he of use to have such qualification in this Bill. I beg to move.
The Earl of Caithness: The phrase,
"ceased to reside in the premises"
is identical to that used in Section 1 of the Protection from Eviction Act 1977 which created a criminal offence of harassment and unlawful eviction. It seems right that both the 1977 Act provision and the new one relating to civil liability should be framed in a similar way in this respect. In both cases the task of deciding whether or not the occupier generally had or had not ceased to reside in the premises is placed firmly in the lap of the courts. That is a task which they have already shown themselves well able to cope with.
The insertion of the word "permanently" would not, I submit, add anything useful to the provision. We should leave the matter to the courts and make sure that the wording of the Bill is the same as that of the Protection from Eviction Act.
Lord Meston: In view of that response I venture to think that perhaps the Protection from Eviction Act may need to be improved. I was endeavouring to close what I perceived as a loophole bearing in mind that if it is reproduced in a criminal statute, a criminal statute will be construed in favour of the defendant.
Therefore, if I am right on this point and there is a doubt about the matter, however wrongly the landlord may act he will have a chance of getting away with it. I hope that the Government will have one further look at this provision. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 27 agreed to.
Clause 28 agreed to.
Lord Graham of Edmonton Lord Graham of Edmonton moved Amendment No. 58:
After Clause 28 insert the following new clause:
("Aggravated damages for racial or sexual harassment.
.Where, pursuant to section 28 of this Act, damages are being awarded, aggravated damages shall be awarded if any part of the harassment for which the damages are being awarded can be shown to have been racial or sexual harassment.").
The noble Lord said: In moving Amendment No. 58 I wish to speak also to Amendment No. 59. These amendments stand in the name of my noble friend Lord McIntosh of Haringey. The Committee will understand that they are related very much to the general theme of the debates that have taken place over the past hour and 10 minutes. The amendments invite the Committee to consider the matter of
98
harassment which causes terror to the individuals it affects. The amendments show that harassment has certain connotations in specific situations.
Amendments Nos. 58 to 59 seek to call the attention of the Minister and his noble friends to two specific areas. I hope to convince the Committee that in those two areas harassment is an even more obnoxious problem than it is in other areas. Amendment No. 58 is concerned with aggravated damages as a consequence of racial or sexual harassment. Amendment No. 59 deals with the consequences when a person is found guilty of racial or sexual harassment. I believe that the Committee is united in its detestation of cases where it is clear beyond any doubt that individuals in wretched housing are, in addition, subjected to racial or sexual harassment. Reference has been made to some people who subject tenants to racial or sexual harassment. I am not saying that racial or sexual harassment is a universal practice of landlords, but incidents of such harassment are not isolated events either.
Sadly the reading that I have done in preparation for this debate shows that the problem is very bad. The Home Affairs Committee of another place concluded in its report on racial attacks that such attacks had,
"received less attention than other forms of violence, such as football hooliganism, although the long-term damage they do to our society is, we believe, much greater. Given the immense importance to Britain of improved race relations and the suffering caused by racial violence, we would wish to see much more emphasis from the highest political levels on the unacceptability of racial violence and the need for effective action against it".
I equate the words "highest political levels" with the Government.
We want the Government to write on the face of the Bill that in the special (although not unique) circumstances in which it may be held by a court that harassment which has led to wrongful eviction for which a landlord has been convicted causes the court to hold, on the evidence, that there has been a special type of harassment which is racial or sexual, and particularly of women who head one-parent families and where children are involved, special and aggravated damages may be awarded.
I have a pamphlet entitled Homeless in Earls Court. It states:
"Racial harassment. Reports from Black and Asian people of harassment are common. They are vastly over-represented amongst hotel residents. 50% of Lambeth and 90% of Tower Hamlets hotel residents are from minority ethnic groups".
Perhaps I may quote from the report of the London Housing Inquiry. As has been said more than once, London is not unique. However, the bad aspects of the housing situation are particularly acute in London. The circumstances are not unique and they may be seen in any large urban area which suffers from the problems which we are discussing.
The evidence upon which the report of the London Housing Inquiry is based has come from a wide range of organisations. They include Age Concern, CHAR, the Central Council for Jewish Social Service, the Children's Society, the Docklands Forum, the London CAB Service, the UK Institute of Ethnic Minority UK/India Welfare Society, the London Islamic Turkish Associations, London Women's Aid, Paddington Churches Housing Association, and

99
many more. The evidence did not come from one political or geographical source. It has come from a wide range of organisations which I believe the Committee respects for what they are attempting to do in assisting people in wretched circumstances.
As regards the situation of women in poor housing in London, the report states:
"35% of households accepted as homeless are single parent households (a disproportionate number are from Black and Ethnic Minorities) and 9 out of 10 single parents are women…Black and Ethnic Minority women and disabled women are further disadvantaged as they face higher rates of unemployment and are more likely to be lower paid. These facts show the lack of economic power held by women. This is fatal in an economy where owner occupation is growing and income determines access into housing".
We know that the greatest violence to women occurs within the household and involves other members of the family, primarily husbands. Women may be subject to harassment in a variety of ways as regards domestic violence. The report states:
"One London borough estimates that women fleeing domestic violence accounts for 80% of those in temporary accommodation".
As regards the aspect of race, in almost every area throughout London black people and those from ethnic minorities tend to live in worse housing conditions than do white households. Black people and women are very vulnerable as regards housing problems. When they are at the mercy of the housing market, they may have very great difficulty. The report states:
"The results of the London Housing Survey 1986/7 show that only 13% of Black households in council property in London live in houses rather than flats, as against 33% of white households".
The Report 'Black and White Britain' (1984) found that 11% of West Indian households lived in blocks of flats with 4 or more floors as against only 2% of white households".
I know that those Members of the Committee who are still here and taking an interest are as familiar as I am with the generally wretched circumstances in which many hundreds of thousands of people find themselves. We are saying, not least because of the evidence which my noble friend Lord McIntosh has produced about the activities for example of Mr. van Hoogstraten and many others, that there are practices which ought to be stamped upon as hard as possible and stamped out. These amendments invite the Government to use their authority to say that practices such as racial and sexual harassment should be especially singled out in the statute. I beg to move.
Lord Renton: I must apologise to the noble Lord for not having been here at the beginning of his speech introducing these amendments. However, I have read the amendments and I heard the last part of his speech. Therefore I hope that I may be forgiven for what I am about to say.
In our law the principle of aggravated damages, especially as a form of statutory injunction, has not been well received and is indeed very rare. So far as concerns sentencing, we have not accepted the principle at all. However, I have some experience of continental criminal codes, especially the Italian Penal Code. It is a terrible headache dealing with all the aggravations and extenuations which arise under it. They fetter the discretion of the courts and give rise to the most complicated situations. One could almost
100
say that a man might be sentenced to an extra five years' imprisonment through the misplacing of a comma. Therefore I hope that such a precedent will not be created by our accepting Amendment No. 59 tonight.
I appreciate the motive of the noble Lord, Lord Graham of Edmonton. We all dislike racial or sexual harassment; we are all against them. But I think that we must leave it to the courts to deal with these matters in the cases that come before them in ways that seem appropriate using their discretion rather than try to impose specific instructions upon them in the ways that these two amendments do.
The Earl of Caithness: As my noble friend Lord Renton has just said, we on this side of the Committee share the abhorrence of Members opposite for racial or sexual discrimination and for criminal behaviour with a racial or sexual motive. However, I am afraid that we believe that this does not justify awarding aggravated damages automatically where racial or sexual harassment was involved in a case which has resulted in damages being awarded under Clause 27. I repeat what was said in another place, that deplorable though racial and sexual harassment are, they are not necessarily worse than other forms of behaviour such as ill-treatment of the elderly or the disabled.
Nor do I think that the new clause is actually necessary. The damages which are awarded under Clause 27 are already exemplary, but I say to the noble Lord, Lord Graham, that it is open to a plaintiff to claim additional damages where there has been an offence of the type for which aggravated damages may be awarded, such as trespass against the person, which might often be relevant in cases of racial or sexual harassment. Clause 27 does not remove the right of a plaintiff to claim under another head. The plaintiff may have grounds for proceeding under the Race Relations or Sex Discrimination Acts, and these claims will not be disallowed because of the award of damages under this clause.
With regard to the second new clause, it is up to the courts to decide what factors they shall take into account as aggravating or mitigating factors when they are sentencing. It is already open to them to consider racial or sexual motives as aggravating factors in sentencing under this section of the Protection From Evicition Act if they choose, and it is not for government to dictate that they should always consider these factors in preference to any others.
Of course we are in sympathy with Members opposite in deploring the evils which they wish to tackle through these amendments, but I put it to the Committee that these amendments are not the acceptable means of doing so.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: To say that I am disappointed in what the Minister has said is the understatement of the evening. Without wishing to give offence, perhaps I may say that I genuinely believe that the Minister and most of his colleagues on the other side of the Chamber do not grasp,

101
because they have not experienced, the wretchedness, despair and terror which exist among thousands of people who find themselves in the kind of circumstances that these two amendments seek to redress.
First of all, I believe that housing per se is an element in life and relationships which is quite unique. The ability to enjoy the quietude of one's own home and the security of a house are unique features among the many facets of what one might call the good things of life. We are therefore talking about a unique factor.
When it comes to the question of racial harassment, the Committee will not be surprised when I take the view that there is much racial prejudice in Britain—as indeed there is in the world—and, to be fair to the Government, they seek to take account of it. The Minister may be right in saying that there are other forms of redress, but, rightly or wrongly, our amendments are an attempt to show to a great many people who feel aggrieved and badly done by because of their inability to obtain fair treatment in housing, that the Government recognise their problems in housing and the unfair treatment meted out because of the colour of people's skin. It may very well be a case of a black landlord who carries out racial harassment against a white tenant or equally a white landlord who is harassing a black tenant. When the courts find that there has been harassment with a racial overtone or purpose, then it should be capable of redress.
There is also the situation of very many women who find that they are harassed because they are women and are vulnerable. Together with other Members of the Committee last week or the week before I listened to the wretched tales told by members of the Bayswater Project. They came to us and we listened to them. I do not believe that it would have been possible for any Member of the Committee to have listened to those women and come away other than utterly depressed at the circumstances in which they find themselves, circumstances in which racial and sexual harassment form part of their daily life and that of their children. These amendments seek to address that situation.
I am disappointed at what the Minister has had to say. We shall look again at the remedies that he has pointed out. I must emphasise that our sympathy is not a synthetic one. We accept that the Government acknowledge that there is a problem which needs to be addressed. The Minister's solution is to point to other ways in which it can be dealt with. We shall examine it further when we come back at a later stage. In those circumstances I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 59 not moved.]
Clause 29 [Further offence of harassment]:
[Amendments Nos. 60 to 63 not moved.]
Clause 29 agreed to.
9.30 p.m.
Clause 30 [Variation of scope of 1977 ss, 3 and 4]:
Lord Graham of Edmonton Lord Graham of Edmonton moved Amendment No. 64:
Page 21, line 38, leave out subsection (1).
The noble Lord said: With this amendment I speak to Amendments Nos. 65, 66, 67, 68, 72, 74 and 75.
The amendment that I move seeks to continue the present application of the Protection from Eviction Act 1977 and the need for a court order where repossession is sought for the type of letting excluded from that protection by Clause 31 of this Bill.
Clauses 30 and 31 exclude certain tenants and licensees from the Protection from Eviction Act 1977. We do not feel that the proposals included in these clauses strengthen the rights of tenants against illegal eviction.
To put the Government's proposals, as laid out in these clauses, into perspective, it must be realised that they intend to decriminalise certain evictions. In reality this will remove from the protection of the law people who are likely to be the most vulnerable. This part of the Bill is about the vulnerability of certain groups of people who are living in wretched circumstances. As we understand it, the groups which will be removed from the protection of the law consist of people sharing living accommodation with their landlord, where the landlord was an owner/occupier before the tenancy or licence began, licences granted as a temporary expedient to a trespasser, holiday lets, hostels of statutory bodies, housing associations, or anybody else whom the Secretary of State decides upon. A closer look at these groups shows the serious flaw in the Government's claims that they are giving greater protection against unscrupulous landlords.
On hostels, I ask this serious question. Are the Government saying, for example, that people who are living in hostels—possibly having been discharged from psychiatric hospitals, having drink or drug dependency problems, or being very young or very old—should be allowed to be evicted on to the streets without any protection from the courts? The Minister needs to answer that question, yes, or no. Already it is common for hostel dwellers to be evicted unceremoniously at short notice. As the reason for their being in such accommodation is usually because they are vulnerable and need support, basic rights are rarely enforced.
The NFHA proposed that hostel dwellers should be treated in almost exactly the same way as other housing association tenants when possession was sought, but that the right of security should be qualified by the introduction of new grounds for possession to cover gross misconduct in shared accommodation and the situation where a resident no longer requires special accommodation. These additional grounds adequately cover any problems which may arise in tenancies where there is a communal aspect to the accommodation not usually present in housing association tenancies, while allowing hostel dwellers a reasonable level of security.
Holiday lets form the largest category of abuse and sham lettings. Genuine holiday lettings are already exempt from security of tenure. To remove the need for a court order for eviction will make sham lettings even more attractive to landlords wishing to abuse the system, as the court hearing is usually the only point at which the sham can be tested. For instance, nurses working at the Royal Free Hospital in Hampstead were let rooms in the street opposite the hospital on holiday let agreements. At the end of the six months' period the letting was extended for a further six months. After taking advice the nurses applied for fair rents to be registered on the premises. The landlord then applied to the courts for possession but the courts upheld the nurses' claim that the device was a sham and that they had a protected tenancy.
There are other aspects of the amendment that I have moved on which I have more details, but I am conscious of the pressure of time on the Committee and of other amendments to which we need to give attention. I hope that the Minister—who I am certain has given close attention to what we are trying to do—will say something helpful to me before I decide what to do with the amendments. I beg to move.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: I have very strong views on this subject. They are quite different from those expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Graham of Edmonton. In the first place this lack of protection is to be in a place with a resident landlord. That was the first category that he covered. I believe that the intention in taking away the present condition is to encourage people to let a portion of a property which they are not willing to let at present because of the restrictions and the problems that they would face. If through this change in the law we bring about a great increase in the number of people willing to share their accommodation, I believe that is good.
At Second Reading I suggested that if this is to create a whole new quantity of housing, even if someone is required to leave by his resident landlord he will have somewhere else to go because some other resident landlord will be willing to have him. That is the first issue about resident landlords.
In the last year I have been to see a great many hostels dealing with short-term tenants. I have been very impressed with the work that they do, but what interested me greatly was a point made by people running the hostels. It is essential for them to have a process, a pipeline, whereby people stay in the hostel but do not remain there permanently.
I call to mind immediately a place which had 17 residents, each requiring special rehabilitation after psychiatric treatment, perhaps for problems involving alcoholism or drugs. There were different problems in each case. The work that the hostel was doing was fantastic, but the staff were concerned to have further places for people to move onto when they no longer needed the rehabilitation process. It was said that unless there was a wider variety of housing available they could rapidly find themselves with 17 permanent residents and no hope of continuing the good work they were doing because
104
the hostel would stagnate with those same 17 people in possession of the property. The Committee will agree that 17 residents is not a very large number.
These are not instances in which I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Graham, at all. However, I have one point that I should like the Minster to answer. At present if a local authority is to help someone who has been asked to leave somewhere where there is a resident landlord, it will not do so until it sees a court order for possession. With that court order the local authority considers that the person is officially and legally homeless and the council then undertakes an obligation to look after them.
What will happen if a resident landlord just asks someone to go and that person has no documentation to prove that he left willingly and without regret? What obligation would the local authority then have to do anything? I see a problem there, but the other aspects of this amendment I do not agree with and I shall oppose it.
Earl Russell: The noble Lord, Lord Graham of Edmonton, knows that I go along with a very large part of the general framework of criticisms that he and his colleagues have developed, but there are occasions, of which I believe this is one, when I find it necessary to say that landlords are people too. I do not believe that there is a large amount of housing in London about to be brought onto the market. I do not think there are many more houses to be found in London.
One area in which there is a possibility of bringing more houses or at least rooms on to the market is the areas of holiday lets. I appreciate that that can be abused and often is. I am certain that I should not contemplate a holiday let of my premises were the amendment on the statute book. On this occasion I hope that the Minister will resist the amendment.
The Earl of Caithness: Support from that quarter of the Committee is always welcome. The noble Lord, Lord Ross of Newport, was active earlier in the Bill and the noble Earl, Lord Russell, is no less welcome in joining our considerations.
As my noble friend Lady Gardner of Parkes indicated, behind these amendments lies a fundamental disagreement with some of the changes we are making to the Protection from Eviction Act in this Bill. We believe that that Act needs to be strengthened, and we are extending its provisions to give greater protection to licensees. It will in future be necessary to get a court order to evict a licensee, but not every licensee. There are amendments here which delete the references in Clauses 30 and 31 to excluded licences, so it should be necessary in every case to get a court order to evict a licensee. But that would make the management of residential accommodation impossible. Even a short consideration shows that some licences are such that it would be quite unreasonable to expect the licensor to get a court order to evict. Clause 31 sets out the categories of tenancy or licensee which should be excluded from the new provision.
Amendment No 67 deletes another important provision. The Bill excludes some tenancies, and then

105
excepts some from the exclusion. This amendment removes the exceptions from the exclusion. Amendment No. 65 is a consequential amendment.
Amendment No. 72 would have us require landlords and licensors issue notices in prescribed form giving four week's notice to excluded tenants and licensees. The whole point about such excluded agreements is that they are not to be subject to the same formal notice requirements as tenancies and licences which are within the scope of the amended Act. We contend that it would be a nonsense for there to be a formal notice requirement for a squatter or a holidaymaker, for example. I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord Graham of Edmonton, will appreciate the difficulties that the amendment would cause to the holiday industry. The noble Earl, Lord Russell, indicated an example where he would be reluctant to let his house or part of it as a result of the amendment. It would run contrary to our wish to increase the amount of property on the market available for letting.
Amendments Nos. 74 and 75 seek to delete parts of Clause 33, not only a reference to excluded tenancies and licences. Among the deletions are those subsections which provide that where a landlord or licensor increases the rent payable by an existing tenancy or licensee, then that tenancy or licence is treated as a new tenancy or licence for the purpose of the amended sections of the Protection from Eviction Act. We do not want to undermine the security of existing tenants or licensees. Let me emphasise that we do not want landlords to evict their present tenants so that they can put in new tenants subject to a different and less stringent security of tenure regime. By providing that new tenancies and licences are created when the rent is increased we are protecting the position of existing tenants, and of landlords who must of course be entitled to increase the rent.
We have created a logical system designed to give extended protection to licensees, and we believe that these amendments would undermine this at crucial points.
My noble friend Lady Gardner of Parkes asked me about a specific matter. Where a landlord has a right to possession the advice which my department has given to authorities is that they should not insist on a—perhaps I had better write to my noble friend.
9.45 p.m.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: I am prepared to wait. I am bound to say that I am disappointed not only with the Minister's reply but with the attitude of the noble Baroness, Lady Gardner of Parkes. We are talking of people who, if they had any other option than to be a tenant in the kind of establishment about which we are talking, with a resident landlord, or any other option than to be in a hostel for a special purpose, would not in general want that to be their place. We are not arguing that there should be any permanence of tenure. We are arguing that these people, one of the most vulnerable groups in society, who have had some protection should not have it removed.
106
The Committee should be aware that members of the National Federation of Housing Associations, who are the landlords of many of the hostels in which the people stay whom we are trying to protect, certainly do not wish to see their position strengthened, if that is what the Bill says, and ipso facto the position of their tenants weakened by this. The association told me that it wrote to William Waldergrave, who at that time was the Housing Minister. June McKerrow, the Chair of the NFHA, said:
"Residents of housing association hostels and shared housing should enjoy a limited form of security… This can be achieved by amending the Bill so that licensees of housing association hostels are subject to the provisions of the 1977 Protection from Eviction Act".
I hear what the noble Baroness, Lady Gardner of Parkes, is saying, that in the philosophy of the Bill we are loosening up, widening and encouraging greater flexibility. The people who are closer to the problems than either the noble Baroness or myself—that is those people who are daily in contact with and are having to work the system— are telling us that the situation is not as she sees it but the way that I have attempted to portray it.
I am very sorry that the Minister has already allowed landlords to get easier access to courts for possession proceedings and that the required notice periods have been reduced. In this series of amendments we are not seeking full security for tenure. We are just seeking to ensure that the courts are still involved before eviction takes place.
I believe that the Minister's friend is saying to the Minister that perhaps he might want to intervene.
9.45 p.m.
The Earl of Caithness: Indeed, I should like the opportunity to intervene, just to continue the answer to my noble friend Lady Gardner of Parkes.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: We can hardly wait.
The Earl of Caithness: Well, here I am with the answer. The advice that we have been given to authorities is that they should not insist on a court order before rehousing a tenant who has to leave and is in priority need, and that will continue to be our advice. But if my noble friend would care to listen to what I have to say in more detail on Amendment No. 71 of the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, which deals specifically with hostels, perhaps we may go into that point again.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: I repeat my disappointment. As is the convention, I simply say that when those outside the House have discussed with me what the Minister has said we may come back to this matter at a later stage. In the meantime I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 65 to 68 not moved.]
Clause 30 agreed to.
Clause 31 [Excluded tenancies and licences]:
Lord Ross of Newport Lord Ross of Newport moved Amendment No. 69:
Page 23, line 36, leave out ("only") and insert ("for a period not exceeding two months and the tenant or licensee has not been in occupation of the premises for more than two months.").
The noble Lord said: I am conscious of the fact that I have a fairly long brief and I do not wish to keep the House for too long, but I have great sympathy with the noble Earl in his predicament during the last amendment. I recall when I was first in the other place the then Secretary of State for Energy, the right honourable Tony Benn, being interrupted by my honourable friend the Member for Rochdale. He said that he hoped to carry the honourable Member with him, which brought the House down, since he weighed 29 stone.
I am hoping that in this case I shall be able to carry my honourable friend on these Benches with me, because I am hoping to define in this amendment what actually is a holiday let. I have had a quick word with him, and he tends to agree with me that perhaps two months is a reasonable period for a holiday let. It seeks to obviate the predictable use of sham holiday labels, referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Graham of Edmonton, on the previous amendment, for what will be quite extraordinary residential tenancies.
The blanket nature of the exclusion, as the Bill now stands, from even the basic protection of the requirement for eviction through the court of residential occupiers who have been obliged to enter into so-called holiday agreements to get a roof of any kind over their heads has horrified housing advisers. The amendment comes from tenancy relation officers active in this field in London—it is not an experience to my knowledge in my part of the world—who have seen numerous cases in which prospective occupiers have had to provide employers' references and have then been granted the right to occupy premises in such well-known "resorts" as Tottenham and Crouch End for holidays of a year or so at a time.
That was bad enough when the "holiday" description was to avoid or evade the security of tenure and right to register a fair rent consequent upon protected status under the Rent Act 1977. However, at least those occupiers could rely on Section 3 of the Protection from Eviction Act 1977 and could test their position in court if they took advice rather than just accepting a landlord's orders. In their view it will be far worse in future because the mere description of an occupation agreement as "for a holiday only" will be used by many unscrupulous landlords and agents to save the time, trouble and expense of repossession through the court even after guaranteed possession is available to them through the assured shorthold tenancy. Thus even the very limited rights of this new style of tenure will be denied to many people who have no choice but to look for a rented home in the private sector. I repeat my support for the assured shorthold tenancy. It is a move in the right direction. The amendment is an endeavour to ensure that it is not greatly abused by those who try to get round it with holiday tenancies.
Many people will end up being unceremoniously and even forcibly evicted after paying exorbitant
108
rents for substandard homes if they try, for instance, to insist on their rights to standards of repair that the Government rightly intend to strengthen. The police will usually be powerless to intervene even if summoned while the eviction is taking place. It is idle to say, as the Minister for Housing and Planning has said in another place, that there seems to be no need to prescribe a maximum length for an excluded holiday because we can leave the meaning of the word to the discretion of the courts. I think, as was said earlier, that it is up to us to define the limits that we believe to be fair and reasonable—in our view, two months. There will not be any reference to the court, or certainly not until well after the eviction, and then only if the dispossessed occupiers can somehow manage to fund civil legal action and produce credible witnesses who will not be deterred by fear of being similarly treated themselves.
It is surely reasonable to restrict the length of any holiday agreement that might take an occupier out of the protection of the court to a time that is rather more than the total of holiday that most working people have in a year, let alone at any one time. We are talking here about a significant departure from the principle only recently established in the minds of most people that it is nearly always unlawful to deprive anybody of what might be called his or her home other than by proceedings in the court. If it is contended that any persons threatened by this holiday exclusion as it stands would not be occupying
the premises "as a residence"—in other words, it is not their home—then it is reasonable to rejoin that the rejection by the occupiers of the holiday label and any attempt on their part to assert a continuing right to reside must cast doubt at the very least on the accuracy of the label from the first. That doubt should be—indeed, must be—resolved in the court.
The second part of the amendment is necessary because the courts have often upheld "working holidays" of a year or more in length as a valid use of the holiday exception from Rent Act protection. If this line of authority is not statutorily ruled out for the future, it will be almost impossible for wrongly dispossessed tenants to get legal aid or even to find a solicitor who feels able and willing to take civil action against the landlord. Criminal proceedings by the local authority would hardly ever be feasible because of the difficulty of showing, on the criminal burden of proof beyond reasonable doubt, that the landlord or agent had had the necessary guilty intention to evict without recourse to the law someone entitled to be evicted only through the court.
I am told that the Minister for Housing and Planning said in another place, and the Under-Secretary of State has repeated it in correspondence with the Association of Tenancy Relation Officers, that there is no issue of principle that goes against an amendment such as this. There would appear to be every reason in principle and for the sake of social harmony and upholding the rule of law that it should be accepted.
Genuine holiday landlords will still be protected if this amendment is accepted. Sham holiday landlords

109
who impose their terms willy-nilly on persons searching desperately for somewhere, almost anywhere, to live will be frustrated. Surely that is devoutly to be desired.
In moving this amendment I mention one other point. It has been drawn to my attention that Clause 30 brings all residential licences into the protection of the requirement for a court order for eviction by saying that Section 3 of the Protection from Eviction Act applies to,
"any premises occupied as a dwelling under a licence"
as it applies to,
"premises let as a dwelling under a tenancy".
That wording means, I am told, that so-called bare licencees—I have not heard that word until recently—who are persons who have never paid a penny for their use of the property and who are genuinely intended by the owner to enjoy it free of charge, are included in the requirement for a court order unless excluded under Clause 31.
I am referring to a person who is perhaps going abroad for a short period and who has a friend who has sold his house and wants temporary accommodation. Those people who abuse the trust put in them by the person who has let them the house in fact have the protection of the courts until they can he evicted. That seems to be wrong when we are at the same time talking about people in so-called holiday lets. It is obviously an omission in error which has recently been brought to the attention of officials of the Department of the Environment, who have said that it is intentional and that no government amendment is planned. I think that is a shame. I now bring it to the attention of the Minister because I believe it is wrong. People enter into such agreements on trust and those agreements should be honoured.
I go back to my original amendment which seeks to define what is a holiday let. I hope the Minister will agree that two months is a reasonable period. I beg to move.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: In general I support the amendment but I must protest, as a resident on the borders of Crouch End and as one who represented Tottenham for 10 years on the Greater London Council, at the slur in the noble Lord's speech about those delightful neighbourhoods. He ironically suggested that they could not be resorts. Let me assure him that there are few more delightful places in which to live and work than Tottenham and Crouch End.
Lord Ross of Newport: I apologise to the noble Lord. I was brought up in North Finchley. I am going to Crouch End next week for a fortnight.
Lord Renton: Perhaps I should declare a contingent interest. Although the family property to which I shall refer is in Scotland, and Part I of the Bill does not refer to Scotland, I am very much afraid that if this amendment is accepted it will create a precedent for Scottish law which I believe would be unwelcome.
The amendment is misconceived. So many holiday lettings are not for two months. There are not many
110
people who can afford two months' holiday. In our experience with the house and the cottage on our property in Scotland which from time to time we let, it is nearly always let for two weeks at a time. That is what is wanted. I do not think there has been a single example of the properties being let for two months. Some of the lettings for the cottage are for only one week.
If the amendment is accepted we would find a strange position which, frankly, would be unfair to the owners of the property. The amendment says that that holiday letting is,
"for a period not exceeding two months".
That may be a letting for only one week. It continues by stating that in effect the tenant or licensee can stay on for two months. Having agreed to a letting for one week, then to stay on for two months would be wrong if this amendment were accepted. The Bill as it stands is much better, and it is right. It states:
"A tenancy or licence is excluded if it confers on the tenant or licensee the right to occupy the premises for a holiday only".
That covers all likely circumstances. It would be a very artificial and unfair distinction to make if this amendment were accepted. Therefore I very much hope and expect that my noble friend will resist it.
10 p.m.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: Before the noble Lord sits down, does he not appreciate that this amendment is an attempt to achieve some clarity over the period which the Bill regards as a holiday? Is he not aware that there are sham holiday lets? They are called holiday lets as a device for the landlord to avoid the responsibilities which he would have if they were otherwise classified.
Lord Renton: That may be the motive behind the amendment, but I am speaking of the effect of the amendment, which is as I have said.
Earl Russell: I wish to reassure my noble friend Lord Ross that he has succeeded in carrying me with him. It is not as difficult a task as carrying with him his honourable friend the Member for Rochdale. This is such a good amendment that I have no doubt that he would have succeeded. It seems to distinguish with a discrimination which is characteristic of the approach on these Benches as regards landlord and tenant relations as between use and the abuse. That distinction needs making. I do not believe that the amendment has the effect suggested by the noble Lord, Lord Renton, because it is creating an excluded tenancy; that is a tenancy in which the landlord can recover possession without the difficulties characteristic of other tenancies. I do not believe it is the effect of this amendment to give guaranteed possession for two months for a tenancy which was supposed to last for two weeks. I believe that it does what it is intended to do, and I am happy to support it.
Lord Coleraine: I wonder whether the noble Earl, who is a noted academic, will agree with me that there are many cases when academics from other countries take sabbatical leave, come to London on holiday and rent a house for six months.
The Earl of Caithness: As the Committee is aware, sham holiday lets are essentially a device to evade the rent and security regime of the Rent Act. With the new shorthold tenancy we are offering landlords a method of using short lets at market rents which gives them a guaranteed right of possession. This has to be attractive to the landlord whose main aim in setting up sham holiday lets is to set market rents for his property. The landlord who sees the attraction of sham holiday lets as being the power to evict without a court order is running a serious risk. If he uses a sham holiday let rather than shorthold he runs the risk that if the tenancy is examined in court he will be found to have created a full assured tenancy.
I am sure that, like me, the noble Lord, Lord Ross of Newport, sees the danger of any definition which includes a time limit as being that the unscrupulous landlord will grant lets of just shorter than the time limit, in this case the two months suggested in his amendment. Landlords of houses in multiple occupation, for example, would simply offer tenants successive holiday lets of different rooms in their property, which would be disruptive for tenants. The amendment would also bite on the admittedly rare but known creature, the person who is lucky enough to take a holiday for more than two months. I appreciate that Members of the Committee are trying to tackle a known abuse with this amendment, but I believe that it is an abuse which will die out in a healthy, flourishing market in which shorthold becomes the norm for short lets.
The noble Lord, Lord Ross of Newport, referred to Clause 31 bringing all residential licences into its scope and particularly the bare licences. He cannot have it both ways. He wants every residential licensee to have protection except the bare licensee who does not pay for his accommodation. There will be few bare licensees who are not in fact licensees of resident landlords. Where they are licensees of resident landlords no court order is needed. They are not in principle different from other licensees, so the licensor should give them notice and get an order if there is a dispute about possession.
Lord Ross of Newport: The noble Earl seems to be well briefed about bare licensees. I was trying to be even-handed, so there was a case the other way round. However, I accept what he has just said. The answer to the noble Lord, Lord Coleraine, is that anybody wanting to take a property for six months or more enters into a shorthold tenancy under the Bill; and I totally support that. I bow to the knowledge of the noble Lord, Lord Renton. He and I used to sit in another place and I would not want to take issue with him. I remember that long ago the first real holiday I ever had was in Scotland. I took a cottage for a whole month right up in the North-West of Scotland. The lady who let the cottage said that if I took it for more than a fortnight I could have it a lot cheaper; so I did, and thoroughly enjoyed it. We were trying in the amendment to define what is a holiday let. I fail to see the noble Lord's argument against adding at the end of subsection (7) the words,
"the tenant or licensee has not been in occupation … for more than two months".
It certainly was not the intention to stop the holiday let to which the noble Lord referred. If it were to have
112
that effect, which I still cannot see—the noble Lord has far more knowledge of legal matters than I do—it certainly was not intended.
I realise that this is a late hour and hardly the time to divide the Committee but we have at least debated an issue which the noble Earl himself has admitted causes concern in London and about which I admit, being in the Isle of Wight, I do not know very much. However, I am told that sham holiday lets are an issue and therefore if we have at least aired the subject it may have some effect. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
The Earl of Caithness The Earl of Caithness moved Amendment No. 70:
Page 24, line 7, at end insert ("or Housing for Wales").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey Lord McIntosh of Haringey moved Amendment No. 71:
Page 24, line 8, leave out paragraph (h).
The noble Lord said: In speaking to an earlier amendment, the Minister promised the noble Baroness, Lady Gardner, that all would be revealed about hostels when he came to reply to this amendment. I hate to disillusion him but this is a limited amendment. It refers only to hostels under housing associations and it refers only to licences, rather than tenancies, in those hostels.
The effect of the amendment is to remove housing associations from the list of landlords to whom Clause 31 applies and therefore to give some degree of security of tenure to licensees under housing associations. No criticism of housing associations as landlords is implied by the amendment. There have been various reasons why housing associations with the highest of motives have not only set up hostels but as well as tenancies have had residents in hostels who have licences. However, because of the way the Bill is drafted at the moment, those on licences rather than on tenancies could be evicted without the need first to obtain a court order. I am not saying that most housing associations would have any intention of doing so as they are charitable housing associations.
The difference between licences and tenancies in housing association hostels is or ought to be of historical interest rather than of real interest. The only argument that I can think of as to why there should be any difference is when there is a risk of having disruptive tenants, or disruptive residents, in these housing association hostels.
It is certainly the case that there are some disruptive residents, and housing associations must not have any ability to deal with such tenants taken away from them. But surely that should happen by calling in the police, rather than by using housing tenancy legislation. If it is a problem, having called in the police, to get the courts to act quickly enough, then I suggest that it is up to the Government to propose an expedited court procedure and not to have legislation which continues and intensifies the difference between tenants and licensees in housing association hostels.
I do not think that this is a particularly controversial amendment. I do not know whether it

113
covers the points which the noble Baroness, Lady Gardner of Parkes, wished to refer to, but I hope that the Committee will feel that it is a reasonable approach to cutting out a difference which no longer has any real significance. I beg to move.
The Earl of Caithness: Under the existing law it is not necessary to obtain a court order to evict a licensee whose contract has ended. That seems to the Government to be anomalous, and in Clause 30 we have extended the requirement in the Protection from Eviction Act to obtain a court order so that it covers most residential occupiers. Moreover, in, Clause 32 we have extended the notice to quit provisions of Section 5 of the Protection from Eviction Act. There must, however, be some exceptions and those are set out in Clause 31. They include licensees whose agreements have expired living in hostels provided by the bodies listed in subsection (8).
The amendment deletes from that list housing trusts which are charities and registered housing associations. I can see the argument for giving all residents of hostels, not just tenants, a safeguard against arbitrary eviction. But the requirement to give four weeks' notice and to obtain a court order in every case could bring, I contend, real operational problems. The pressure on the county court is such that it commonly takes six to eight weeks for a case to be heard and, regrettably, in some areas it can take rather longer. So an association wishing to remove a resident who was disruptive, because of alcoholism or behavioural disturbance, might have no way of doing so quickly even though that resident was making life intolerable for the other occupants of the hostel.
That seems to me to be a very severe practical drawback in what the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh of Haringey, is proposing. It can certainly be argued that a way of helping to deal with this problem is to have an expedited court hearing. There are precedents for that. But even in these cases it can still take a week or two to get to court, and allowing some cases to go to the front of the queue means that others have to wait longer.
There is also the point that much of the accommodation with which we are concerned here is intended for short stays, not permanent residence, and that it is inappropriate to have formal and possibly lengthy procedures of this kind to remove an occupant who no longer has any contractual right to remain there and who has no statutory security either.
We are therefore not convinced that this amendment is sensible from the point of view of the practical operation of hostels. We believe that housing associations are responsible bodies and can be trusted to treat their hostel residents reasonably. They can grant contractual security and minimum periods of notice if they wish. We have, however, been discussing these issues, and others related to the status of hostel residents, with the National Federation of Housing Associations. Those discussions will continue. I cannot give the Committee any undertakings, but I can say that we are prepared to look at the whole issue with an open mind.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I must take note of the Minister's last remarks and of his assurance that the National Federation of Housing Associations has been consulted on the matter. I shall certainly look to brief myself better than I feel I have been briefed at the moment about the consultations which have taken place. I welcome what the Minister said about the open mind with which he approaches the matter. If I think it is necessary to come back at a later stage with an amended proposal, then I am sure that I shall have an opportunity to persuade the Minister that there is a kernel of truth behind what we are saying, even if we have not covered all the possibilities. For example, I was particularly impressed by what he said about the danger in our proposals for short-stay hostels. I agree that it would not have been our intention to include short-stay hostels in our proposals. In those circumstances, it is best that I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 31, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 32 [Notice to quit etc.]:
[Amendment No. 72 not moved.]
Clause 32 agreed to.
10.15 p.m.
Lord Ross of Newport Lord Ross of Newport moved Amendment No. 73:
After Clause 32, insert the following new clause:
(".—(l) All local housing authorities to which this section applies shall appoint and retain a proper officer whose functions shall include those set out in subsection (3) below.
(2) This section applies to the following local housing authorities—

(i) district councils and London borough councils;

(ii) the Common Council of the City of London;

(iii) the Council of the Isles of Scilly.

(3) The proper officer for the purposes of subsection (1) above shall receive, acknowledge and investigate any complaint made to the local housing authority by a person aggrieved that an offence under the Protection from Eviction Act 1977 as amended has been committed within the area of that authority and shall prepare a recommendation in writing for that authority on whether or not that authority shall commence a prosecution or other action against any person arising from those investigations.
(4) For the avoidance of doubt, it is hereby confirmed that a person aggrieved under subsection (30) above shall have sufficient interest in the matter to bring appropriate proceedings to enforce the duties established under this section.").
The noble Lord said: The clause seeks to give teeth to the Government's proposals and their manifesto promise to strengthen the law against harassment and unlawful eviction. The Government have drafted Clauses 27, 28 and 29 to honour their manifesto promise, and all credit to them for that.
No law will be of much practical help unless residential occupiers who feel that they have been unlawfully treated can find a ready and reliable source of help in their local council. Despite the Government's wish to abolish local authorities, when people are in trouble they turn to their local authority. The police, under instructions, can find themselves preventing or dealing with breaches of the peace. They send a report in due course to that local authority. Far too many of those reports have been

115
investigated too late to do any good, with the inevitable result that the police in some areas have become less astute at identifying the cases that should be reported.
I hasten to say that in the amendment I do not seek to add to the establishment of local authorities. I pick up the point that the Government look upon the local authority of the future as a type of agency which will perhaps push people in certain directions. Many people will not have too much to do. Even in the Isles of Scilly, one officer could be appointed as the harassment officer.
Legal protection is useless without effective enforcement machinery. The new clause seeks to ensure that every local housing authority has an officer, not necessarily specially appointed, who might be called the tenancy relations or harassment officer and who must and will receive and investigate any complaints alleging harassment or unlawful conviction. Seventeen years ago the Francis Committee recommended that local authorities should employ tenancy relations officers to ensure observance of what was then the fairly new law against harassment and unlawful eviction. However, until now local authorities have had only a power and not a duty to investigate and prosecute alleged offences. The application of the Protection from Eviction Act is haphazard, to say the least. In practice, few authorities have an officer appointed for the purpose of enforcing the Act. Many which have had such officers in the past no longer have them. For example, I am told that the London Borough of Camden had four tenancy relations officers two years ago; it now has none.
By accepting the new clause, the Government can show that they intend that no more such cases can or will occur, and that the law against harassment and unlawful eviction will be enforceable and regularly enforced. If the new clause is not accepted, and local authorities continue to have no duty in that respect, the Protection from Eviction Act is unfortunately likely to continue to be the dead letter it so often is today.
At the request of county council social services departments I put through the Housing (Homeless) Persons Act. I was assured that when that Bill was on the statute book, social services would co-operate completely with housing authorities in the implementation of that Act and that they would play a part in helping to decide cases which should be given priority treatment. I was horrified, I have to admit to the Committee, after 1977 when an Act was on the statute book to find that social services departments wanted nothing whatever to do with it. It was left totally to the housing authorities; I left them with the problem. They had to appoint their own social service officers to interview people who were claiming to be homeless. I think in this case totally the same applies as regards harassment. I take on board that the Government have honoured their pledge to write provisions into the Bill about harassment. They are concerned about it but they have not provided the manpower to carry out the provisions. I ask them to do so now. I beg to move.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I rise to support the amendment to which my name is added. I am bound to say that when I first saw the text I was concerned about the inclusion of the Common Council of the City of London and the Council of the Isles of Scilly. I thought that in the rarified atmosphere of the City of London, this sort of thing was hardly likely to happen. Certainly in the salubrious surroundings of the Isles of Scilly it would never happen. I have to say that I am wrong.
In May 1986 a case was brought to the attention of the Council of the Isles of Scilly where a landlord had removed the front door of a tenanted cottage with a chainsaw. He had smashed all the windows and pulled out all the electrical wiring. There had been other harassment. Although it would have been within its powers to do so, the council and its solicitors decided to take no action. The council was had up before the local authority ombudsman, who said that the complainants had sustained an injustice through the council's administration in what he called a very serious case. So even in the Isles of Scilly there are cases of harassment which require the intervention of local authorities to protect the tenants. If that is so even there, how much more is it so in other local authorities on the mainland of this country?
It may seem draconian to enforce the appointment of tenancy relations officers, but this is by no means a theoretical or abstract problem, as I think Members of the Committee will recognise from some of the cases which I cited last Thursday when talking about Mr. Hoogstraten's associates. One of his associates is now in prison for grievous bodily harm—throwing a lump of concrete at the Westminster tenancy relations officer. It is a problem which is happening every day, particularly in our cities and towns and even in the Isles of Scilly. There is an obligation placed on local authorities, I admit. In general one would like to rely on the discretion of local authorities, but the need is so great that I believe this is a case when such an obligation should be placed on local authorities.
Lord Renton: I hope that my noble friend will not accept this amendment because it is quite unnecessary. Housing authorities have powers to appoint whatever officers are needed to fulfil their statutory obligations. If we accept this amendment it is purely administrative and we shall create a precedent. The statute book will be cluttered up with one section after another in Acts of Parliament, placing responsibilities on local authorities and telling them to appoint officers to fulfil those duties. I hesitate to use the word in the courtesies of the Committee, but frankly this would be ridiculous.
The Earl of Caithness: We believe that it would be wrong to require every local housing authority to appoint such an officer, as this new clause proposes. I agree with my noble friend Lord Renton on that. Perhaps I may tell the Committee that we intend to write to all local authorities drawing their attention to their duties under the Protection from Eviction Act and the remedies available to them where serious harassment is taking place.We shall point out to them

117
that even if they do not create a new post of tenancy relations officer, there are advantages in identifying an existing officer, probably a housing officer, to take on the functions of advising private tenants on their rights.
Different local authorities will cater for the advice needs of private tenants in different ways. Some with a large number of privately tenanted properties in their areas will think the best approach is to appoint a tenancy relations officer with special responsibilities for investigating allegations of harassment. Others will prefer to leave this to housing advice centres or law centres.
As the Committee knows, local authorities have complete freedom to appoint such officers as they choose to discharge their statutory functions. I do not think that they would welcome the Government prescribing how they should discharge their functions, and we do not propose to do so in this area.
Although I am sympathetic to the intentions behind the new clause, as I said, we do not propose to prescribe to local authorities the best way of fulfilling their statutory duties. I thought that I would have the support both of the noble Lord, Lord Ross of Newport, and of the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh of Haringey, on that point.
Lord Ross of Newport: The noble Lord, Lord Renton, has walked out of the Chamber. For someone on the opposite side of the Committee to say that it is wrong to impose this and that on local authorities is a bit rich, when the present Administration impose all kinds of restrictions on local authorities. However, I must say that the reply of the Minister was rather better than that of his noble friend.
I was not asking for particular extra appointments. If the Members on the opposite side of the Committee did not watch the television programme that was shown the other day, I ask them to have a look at it. I want the idea of bringing back rented accommodation to succeed. My family never lived in a house that it owned. My father always rented property. But I am sure that there will be problems with rented property. I think that the Minister accepts that. Serious problems already exist in our inner cities, particularly in London.
Therefore, it would strengthen the Government's hand if they were seen to be giving instructions to local authorities as regards harassment and if they were seen to be at least allowing local authorities to have a harassment officer to deal with such problems. I made the point about the implementation of the Housing (Homeless Persons) Act. The noble Baroness, Lady Faithfull, will probably shake her head at what I am about to say. But it is a disappointment to me that the co-operation that used to take place no longer happened after the implementation of that Act. Social services no longer co-operated with the housing authorities as they had in the past. The boroughs found that they had to employ a social worker to interview families who were in distress of one kind or another.
Baroness Faithfull: The situation in the country as a whole must have been uneven. That is the impression I gained from what the noble Lord said. Certainly in my authority and in the authorities with which I worked there was co-operation between the two departments.
Lord Ross of Newport: Perhaps I should have exempted Oxford and authorities in that part of the country. But even in my own authority the cooperation did not work, or at least not after a certain time. Therefore I think that the idea that someone should have responsibility to deal with harassment has merit. I accept the answer that has been given nevertheless, and I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 33 [Interpretation of Chapter IV]:
[Amendments Nos. 74 and 75 not moved.]
Clause 33 agreed to.
Clause 34 [New protected tenancies and agricultural occupancies restricted to special cases]:
Lord McIntosh of Haringey Lord McIntosh of Haringey moved Amendment No. 76:
Page 25. line 35, leave out from ("granted") to the end of line 37, and insert—
('either by the person who at that time was the landlord (or one of joint landlords) under the protected or statutory tenancy or by a person who at that time was connected with the landlord (or with one or more of the joint landlords) under the protected or statutory tenancy").
The noble Lord said: In moving this amendment I wish to speak also to Amendments Nos. 77, 78, 79, 81 and 82. We turn now to Chapter V of Part I of the Bill, which is concerned with the phasing out of the Rent Acts and other transitional provisions.
I remind the Committee of the Government's intention in this respect as expressed in their White Paper and in the consultation paper which they issued on the private rented sector proposals. The White Paper stated:
"The Government does not propose to make any substantial changes in the regime for existing tenancies subject to the Rent Acts. It would not be right to disturb these existing tenancies".
The consultation paper says:
"Existing tenants will retain their right to security of tenure under the Rent Act".
Those are fine words, with which we agree. Our amendments to the chapter are intended to strengthen the Government's hand in the objective they have set themselves. The amendments are in no sense destructive or wrecking amendments. They are intended to help and relieve anxieties expressed about the effectiveness of this part of the Bill.
The first difficulty we see with the Bill as drafted—I say straight away that substantial improvements were made to this part of the Bill at the Committee stage in another place—is that there is still the problem that alternative accommodation, if offered by the same landlord at the same address, achieves the same Rent Act protection but it will be easy for a landlord to get round the protection by offering

119
what would otherwise be alternative accommodation which is not under the control of the same landlord or not at the same address. It is not unknown for landlords to meet and know one another. They may seek to persuade tenants that something is genuinely an acceptable alternative, although it is in another building or owned by a different landlord or the same landlord operating through a different holding company.
There are many examples of that which are known to the various housing action centres in London. Property negotiators may persuade tenants that that is acceptable. However under the Bill as drafted, tenants will lose their rights and find themselves with assured rather than existing protected tenancies.
That is the case with relatively honourable landlords. I am not going back to the case of Mr. Hoogstraten. He had connections with at least 45 companies and used 15 aliases. Unless he and others like him are caught, the provisions of the Bill as drafted are not adequate to deal with the cases where such a landlord may be using different companies, addresses or aliases in order to achieve the loss of controlled status for his tenants. The protection in the Bill, although clearly rightly intended, does not achieve what is intended. We believe that our amendments make the situation clear and provide more effective protection for tenants.
Turning to Amendment No. 77, the Bill provides that a letting granted by a new landlord as suitable alternative accommodation under a possession order will only be a protected tenancy if the court so directs. That weakens the provisions of the 1977 Rent Act. It means that a court could hold—it is only too likely that in a number of cases it would hold—that an assured tenancy is suitable alternative accommodation for a protected tenancy. I hope the Government will assure us that in their view an assured tenancy cannot be regarded in any circumstances as a suitable alternative to a protected tenancy. If the Government are able to do that, I shall not move Amendment No. 80, which deals with that specific point. I hope that that will be seen as a different issue. The amendments are intended to help in a matter on which we share the Government's objectives in this part of the Bill. I hope that the amendments will be seen as helpful and that they will contribute to the effective implementation of the Bill's objectives. I beg to move.
The Earl of Caithness: Amendments Nos. 76, 78, 79, 81 and 82 together raise the issue of how far we can reasonably expect to go in safeguarding the position of those who at present have protection under the Rent Act. It is, as the Committee is aware, a basic principle of our approach that existing Rent Act tenants should remain unaffected by the new proposals. Thus, anyone who has a Rent Act tenancy when the Bill becomes law will retain his existing rights in terms of both rent and security for as long as the tenancy continues.
But we have also recognised that it is right to go further than this and provide that in certain circumstances a tenancy created even after commencement of the Bill can be a Rent Act tenancy.
120
We have, in particular, accepted the need to ensure that existing tenants do not lose their protection by virtue of the landlord persuading them to accept a new tenancy, either of the same or different accommodation. Accordingly, under Clause 34(1)(b), any new tenancy granted to an existing Rent Act tenant by the same landlord—whether the accommodation is the same or different—can also be a Rent Act tenancy.
The noble Lord, Lord McIntosh of Haringey, has argued that we ought to extend this safeguard still further so as to take in the situation where a tenant with Rent Act protection accepts a new tenancy from someone other than the landlord under the previous tenancy—specifically, someone who either had a connection with the previous landlord or made an arrangement with him regarding the new tenancy. The noble Lord's main concern is to ensure that a landlord cannot enter into collusion with a third party in order to deprive a tenant of his existing protection.
I do not lightly dismiss the noble Lord's concern in this matter. However, it seems to me that in seeking to extend the circumstances in which a Rent Act tenancy can be created after commencement of the Bill, he is casting the net unreasonably wide. His proposals could involve penalising the landlord in perfectly innocent circumstances. For instance, a new landlord might in good, faith grant a new tenancy without any knowledge of the previous protected status of the tenant under a landlord with whom he happened technically to be associated, and thereby find that he was committed to a Rent Act letting. Then there are the practical problems of how to define a connection between landlords and how to establish beyond doubt whether there had genuinely been an arrangement of the kind referred to in Amendment No. 79.
The noble Lord's solution in the first case would be to import the definition in the Income and Corporation Taxes Act. But there must be doubt, even with a provision of this complexity, whether we would succeed in thwarting the operator who was absolutely set on circumventing the safeguards we had provided.
The Government's view is that we have gone as far as we sensibly can in this matter of new tenancies granted to existing protected tenants. We want to provide effective safeguards against blatant abuse. On the other hand, we cannot realistically hope to cover every possible angle. If we cast the net wider than we have, we risk producing legislation of fearsome complexity, full of traps for the unwary and perfectly responsible landlord, yet still not guaranteed to catch the person who is set on abusing the system. I am sure that the Committee will agree that there comes a point at which we have to ask the tenant to safeguard his own position. We must remember that no protected tenant can be compelled by a landlord to exchange his existing tenancy for a new one. As I made clear at the outset, so long as he retains his existing tenancy, he will continue to enjoy the full protection under the Rent Act.
I turn now to Amendment No. 77. Under Clause 34 a tenancy entered into after this Bill comes into

121
force can be a protected tenancy under the Rent Act only in limited circumstances. These are set out in subsection (1). One of them is where a court has granted possession under Section 98 of the Rent Act of a dwelling let on a protected tenancy because the landlord is providing suitable alternative accommodation and the court directs that the new tenancy of the alternative accommodation shall be a protected tenancy. By removing the requirement for the court to have made a direction, Amendment No. 77 would mean that whenever a court granted possession under Section 98 the new tenancy would be protected if it met the usual qualifying conditions for a protected tenancy.
We do not think that that is acceptable because it conflicts with the provisions of the Rent Act itself. If a court is to grant possession under Section 98, it has to be satisfied either that the new tenancy will he a protected tenancy or that the security of tenure afforded by the new tenancy in the alternative accommodation offered by the landlord is reasonably equivalent to that provided by a protected tenancy. So the new tenancy does not have to be a protected tenancy. Some other form of tenancy—-for instance, an assured tenancy with contractual terms similar to the statutory safeguards provided by a protected tenancy—may be sufficient. We have sought to preserve this position in Clause 34 by giving the court the power in future to determine whether the tenancy of the new accommodation is to be protected.
So in that respect the Bill is consistent with the Rent Act. This amendment conflicts with that Act and therefore I cannot recommend it to the Committee.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I must express my gratitude to the Minister for explaining my amendments far more lucidly than I did. Certainly in his expose of the situation he leads me to think that the loopholes that I suspect exist in the government drafting are in fact quite serious ones. Even if I have the drafting wrong now—and I think it is highly likely—this is a matter to which I must return at a later stage.
I do not think that the extent to which the present drafting of the Bill leaves the way open for actions by landlords which would not be harassment in the normal sense is fully appreciated. I do not suggest that anything illegal would be done; but the value to a landlord of converting from a protected tenancy under the Rent Act to an assured tenancy is so great that there are many things that landlords could do which could not be classed as harassment, even under the amendments that I sought to move earlier this evening, but which might well persuade a weak-willed or insecure tenant— or perhaps an elderly tenant—to make a move that would be very much to his or her disadvantage.
For example, it would be perfectly legally possible for a landlord to send successive agents or solicitors to discuss alternative offers. That could be done with such frequency that the tenant was never sure what would come next, what opportunities were being offered or what threats were implied in the offer of other opportunities.
122
I am not suggesting that the law on harassment can be made so watertight that that kind of activity could be covered in that respect, but if the advantage to the landlord of a change in tenancy is so great and if there is any real weakness in the drafting of the clause, this must be a possibility which should be taken seriously.
As regards Amendment No. 77, the Minister quite rightly said that when the landlord has obtained a possession order on the grounds that the new letting is suitable alternative accommodation the matter can be dealt with by the courts. But is it really desirable to force this matter into the courts? Is it right to force litigation when it is possible that the landlord and tenant could be in perfectly good agreement about the matter so long as the protected tenancy is to continue in the new circumstances?
I think that I shall have to study quite carefully the various remarks that the Minister has made in his response. He appeared to me to recognise some of the difficulties that we were attempting to address in this series of amendments. It may well be that we shall want to come back to this point at a later stage, perhaps after further discussions with him. On that basis I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 77 to 79 not moved.]
Lord McIntosh of Haringey Lord McIntosh of Haringey moved Amendment No. 80:
Page 26, line 30, at end insert—
("() In Part IV of Schedule 15 of the Rent Act 1977 there shall be added after paragraph 4(2):—
'(3) For the purposes of sub-paragraph (1)(b) a tenancy which is an assured tenancy within the meaning of Part I of the Housing Act 1988 shall not be treated as affording the required security by reason only of the fact that the tenancy is an assured tenancy within the meaning of the Housing Act 1988.' ").
The noble Lord said: I think it is necessary to move this amendment because it deals with a point that is sufficiently different to be teased out if there is any possibility of doing so. I gave the Minister the opportunity to do that, if he thought fit, in his reply to the previous group of amendments.
As the Bill is drafted, there is the possibility that an assured tenancy could be classified as being reasonably equivalent to a protected tenancy. They could be the same in every other way. However, I wish to suggest to the Committee that if the form of tenancy is different—if there is a difference between the protected status and the assured status—then they cannot be reasonably equivalent. The courts ought not to be able to find them reasonably equivalent because the difference between them is so great. It is a fundamental principle of the Bill that it is creating in the new assured tenancy a different and very much lower degree of security. That is the basis on which the Government hope to revive the private rented sector. Without entering into that broader issue, it is clear that the Government see that there is a very great difference.
If we have the drafting of the amendment correct—and I offer no assurance on that—we seek to ensure that no change of accommodation can be regarded as being reasonably equivalent if the form of the tenancy moves from being protected to being

123
assured. If the Government can give us assurance that that would not be called reasonably equivalent there is no difficulty in withdrawing this amendment. I beg to move.
The Earl of Caithness: There is no doubt that the noble Lord has hit on a good point here. We accept the principle behind the amendment. If he will withdraw it at this stage, we can deal with the point at a later stage.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I am grateful to the noble Earl. I could not ask for more than that. I am certainly willing to withdraw it, and to make myself available for discussion if he would find that helpful. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 81 and 82 not moved.]
Clause 34 agreed to.
10.45 p.m.
Clause 35 [Removal of special regimes for tenancies of housing associations etc.]:
The Earl of Caithness The Earl of Caithness moved Amendment No. 83:
Page 27, line 39, at end insert—
("(4) If, on or after the commencement of this Act, the interest of the landlord under a protected or statutory tenancy becomes held by a housing association, a housing trust, the Housing Corporation or Housing for Wales, nothing in the preceding provisions of this section shall prevent the tenancy from being a housing association tenancy or a secure tenancy and, accordingly, in such a case section 80 of the Housing Act 1985 (and any enactment which refers to that section) shall have effect without regard to the repeal of provisions of that section effected by this Act.
(5) In subsection (4) above "housing association" and "housing trust" have the same meaning as in the Housing Act 1985.").
The noble Earl said: I speak also to Amendment No. 177. We have been at pains in drafting Part I of the Bill to ensure that tenants with Rent Act tenancies or with housing association tenancies which are both secure under the Housing Act 1985 and subject to Part VI of the Rent Act do not lose their rights. These amendments fill a lacuna which we have noticed in their protection. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 35, as amended, agreed to.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Renton): Unless any noble Lord objects, I propose to put Clauses 36, 37 and 38 together.
Clauses 36 to 38 agreed to.
Clause 39 [Statutory tenants: succession]:
Lord Dean of Beswick Lord Dean of Beswick moved Amendment No. 84:
Page 30, line 10. leave out subsection (1).
The noble Lord said: In moving Amendment No. 84 perhaps I may speak also to Amendments Nos. 85 to 91 inclusive.
These amendments deal with the rights of succession for people whom we know as carers. It would be fair to say that in the main they are women
124
who have given up their future careers in order to care for elderly relatives. Sometimes this is not of long standing because people's health can deteriorate very quickly, but someone has to take the responsibility for caring for them.
But under Clause 37 and Schedule 4 in Part I, on the death of the original tenant (or of the first successor) other family members can succeed only to an assured tenancy at a market rent. If a family member has been living with his relative for less than two years he or she will not be allowed to succeed to any tenancy and may be forced to find alternative accommodation. Currently, under the Rent Act 1977, family members who have been living with relatives for more than six months can succeed to the same regulated tenancy enjoyed by the original tenant.
A Report stage amendment reducing the residential qualification from the Bill's original proposal from five years to two years was most welcome, but succession will still be to an assured tenancy only. Many carers on low or even modest incomes are unlikely to be able to afford a market rent and may have to leave the accommodation, yet their chances of finding alternative housing are not high. Only assured tenancies will be available in the private and housing association sectors and most local authorities are probably unable to help because of long waiting lists. Carers who have been living with relatives for less than two years may be made homeless when their relative dies. Many may have made the decision to give up their own home to care for a relative whose health has deteriorated. Organisations, especially Age Concern, know of no evidence of people abusing the current succession laws to gain accommodation unfairly.
The proposals on succession contradict the Government's care in the community policy, which relies heavily of course on family carers. Speaking in October last year, at a Conservative Party conference fringe meeting organised by the National Council for Carers and their Elderly Dependants, Mr. Anthony Newton, the Minister, emphasised the Government's commitment to supporting informal carers, recognising that they are the bedrock on which community care provision is based. The lack of available alternatives to family carers further underlines the Government's dependence on these informal carers.
In the Commons Committee stage on 2nd July 1988, Mr. Waldegrave stated:
"We believe that succession rights have been as important as rent control in driving rented property off the market. It would be easy to seem caring by reinstating the right, but it would lead to further drying up of rented property".—[0fficial Report, Commons, 2/7/88; col. 614.]
Age Concern believes that the number of carers who will be affected by the new succession laws in forthcoming years will be relatively small and amending the Bill further should not greatly reduce the future supply of assured tenancies, but the consequences for those people may be very serious. We therefore urge the Government to reduce the residence qualification to six months and to allow qualifying tenants to succeed to the same regulated tenancy as that originally accorded to their relative.
It is late in the evening and there is a lot more that one could say on this issue, but I believe I have said enough in saying that people who do make a sacrifice on the basis of going into accommodation with an elderly relative in order to care for him or her do not take this decision lightheartedly, nor is it taken on a commercial basis. It is mainly and overwhelmingly taken on their desire to care for a member of the family who is in some distress. Obviously in doing so they save the community as a whole a tremendous amount of money and prevent a lot of people being taken into care or hospitalisation with all that that involves. I believe on that basis that the amendments, mainly sponsored by such organisations as Age Concern, are worthy of serious consideration. I beg to move.
Baroness Seear: I want strongly and briefly to support the amendment. I am president of the National Council for Carers and their Elderly Dependants and I am very well aware of the problems which arise over succession in these cases, as the noble Lord, Lord Dean, has said. People who take on caring and move in with their parents or elderly relations in order to do so make a very great personal sacrifice. It is a severe hardship if they cannot then succeed to the house.
Baroness Faithfull: I ask my noble friend to look sympatheticaly on the amendment.
The Earl of Caithness: The theme behind these amendments is that succession to a Rent Act tenancy is a right and that any qualifying member should be able to accede to one on Rent Act terms after a short qualifying period as set out in the Rent Act. It is indeed entirely reasonable that the surviving partner of a couple should take on the tenancy on the same terms enjoyed by his or her spouse. Many Rent Act tenants are elderly couples who have passed a large part of their married lives assuming that when one of them dies the other will be able to take over the tenancy.
It is also reasonable that a family member who has a real stake in the property, established by long residence, should be able to take over the tenancy. But the landlord has rights too, and for many of these tenancies the landlord has been receiving a fair rent which is manifestly unfair to him. Since we are not doing away with succession altogether, we offer him the prospect of a market rent if he chooses to ask for one, except where a spouse inherits. I contend that that is not unreasonable—though there are many landlords who regard it as unreasonable because it goes a lot less far than they would like us to go.
Although we have made substantial concessions on the residence qualification, I accept that there may be individual hard cases—people who do not quite fulfil the two-year residence requirement. This means they do not have an automatic right of succession to the tenancy, but it does not mean that the landlord will not necessarily grant them another tenancy. In some cases a landlord may well be prepared to grant a new-style tenancy to a member of a family he knows.
126
These changes to the succession rules are not uncaring. The noble Lord, Lord Dean, rightly said that in the other place we amended the succession rules from a five-year period to a two-year period of succession. They say to landlords that they cannot have their property back where there are qualifying family members who have a good claim, but they also enable them to charge a market rent in such cases except where the family member is a spouse.
It is right that I should comment on carers because the point was raised by the noble Lord, Lord Dean. the noble Baroness, Lady Seear, and my noble friend Lady Faithfull. I well understand the arguments put forward by those who say that changes we are making to the rights of succession under the Rent Act, and the absence of right of succession to assured tenancies for a member of the tenant's family, are hard on carers—the son or daughter who gives up a home to move in with an elderly parent. As regards the Rent Act, carers will still have the right of succession where they have lived with a tenant for two years at the time of his death. There are transitional provisions to protect people who at the commencement of the Bill had already lived with the tenant for the old qualifying period of six months under the Rent Act. They will succeed to an assured tenancy at a market rent, not a regulated tenancy. We have made this change because we believe it to be inequitable that under the present rules a landlord can lose possession for up to three generations while receiving only an artificially low rent.
As regards new assured tenancies, although we have provided a statutory right of succession for a spouse or common-law partner, we did not think it right to give others such a right. To those Members of the Committee who criticise us for that I say that they must face the fact that if the terms are not attractive to private landlords they will sell their property rather than let it. We cannot force them to let. If we want the private landlord again to provide much-needed rented homes we must create the right conditions. Many landlords find the statutory rights to succession intolerable because they limit their flexibility to dispose of their property as they think best.
It is not that we are against carers; quite the contrary. It is rather that we must also be fair to landlords. Certainly as regards future lettings, landlords will simply stop letting if we are not. That would be quite against the intentions of everyone in this Committee.
Lord Dean of Beswick: I am grateful for the sympathy which the Minister expressed for the position of carers in his opening remarks. However, it saddens me that the Government are not now to be convinced that there is a case to go forward. I do not wish to delay the Committee any longer than is necessary, but I tried to point out the fact that, because of the responsibility and onus they place upon themselves, the carers are saving the community—which means the taxpayer and the Government—a considerable sum of money by the job that they are undertaking which is very often unpaid. They are skimping and even denying themselves any form of social life in order to care for

127
people unable to care for themselves. I hazard a guess. which I think would be more than a guess, that organisations such as those to which the noble Baroness and the noble Lord, Lord Seebohm, belong. Age Concern and local social services departments, could list not isolated cases, but hundreds of cases, of people who are looked after by carers. If they did not accept that responsibility there would be a very difficult problem.
I find it rather disturbing, when the Government are already being criticised for releasing people into the community, that somebody is going to have to accept responsibility for those people in the community. It may well be the eldest son or daughter of a family who has to come back into the community; so a younger son or daughter moves back to help to care for them. If the handicapped or disabled person succeeds to the tenancy and then some tragedy happens, the carer is left without any security of tenure whatever.
I should like to think that the Minister may—I say -"may"—ask the Secretary of State to review the situation. because I am not convinced that the majority in your Lordships' House would take the same view as that of the Minister and the Government so far. The Minister has shown sympathy and on that basis I hope that he will read what I have said and try to make the case. I shall certainly read what he has said. I should like to take away this group of amendments and come back at a later stage. I am sure that there is overwhelming individual case evidence to support our arguments. On that basis, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
11 p.m.
[Amendments Nos. 85 to 89 not moved.]
Clause 39 agreed to.
Schedule 4 [Statutory tenants: succession]:
[Amendments Nos. 90 and 91 not moved.]
Schedule 4 agreed to.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Renton): Unless any noble Lord objects I intend to take Clauses 40 to 44 together.
Clauses 40 to 44 agreed to.
Baroness Faithfull Baroness Faithfull moved Amendment No. 92:
After Clause 44, insert the following new clause:
("Extension of the provisions of Part VI and Part XI of the Housing Act 1985 Relating to Repair Notices and to Houses in Multiple Occupation.
. The Secretary of State shall make regulations on or before the coming into operation of this part of this Act providing for—

(a) failure to comply with sections 189 or 190 of the Housing Act 1985 (repair notices) to be a criminal offence;

(b) improved provisions for local authorities to serve repair notices in respect of communal parts in blocks of flats;

(c) power for local authorities to serve repair notices under section 190(1)(b) of the Housing Act 1985 without prior representations by tenants;

(d) expedited powers for local authorities to carry out work in default of compliance with a repair notice;

128

(e) wider powers for local authorities to recover expenses incurred in carrying out work in default of compliance with a repair notice;

(f) applying minimum management standards to all houses in multiple occupation as defined by section 345 of the Housing Act 1985.").

The noble Baroness said: In moving this amendment may I thank my noble friend the Minister for writing to me very fully on 20th July 1988. I apologise to him that I have been unable to discuss this letter and my amendments before today's debate.
In his letter my noble friend accepted Amendment No. 92 with the exception of (b) and (f). I am particularly interested in (f) which concerns,
"applying minimum management standards to all houses in multiple occupation as defined by section 345 of the Housing Act 1985".
In particular, I am concerned and deeply worried about the bed and breakfast arrangements in this country.
In his letter my noble friend the Minister pointed out that a consultation paper was issued on 18th July to local authorities and to others. I congratulate my noble friend for what is an extremely good consultation paper. It makes the very point that I wish to make in the amendment. It asks everybody to make their views known by 1st September.
The bed and breakfast situation in the country is very serious. I submit that every effort should be made to deal with it as soon as is possible and practicable. If it proves possible for everybody to submit comments by 1st September, will my noble friend consider bringing in an amendment in the final stages of the Bill to deal with the management of houses in multiple occupation?
The question of premium was discussed under Amendment No. 51. In no circumstances can those living in bed and breakfast accommodation ever receive a premium. As a result, families in bed and breakfast accommodation have to remain there for a certain amount of time, and their social, education and health situation becomes very serious.
I hope that my noble friend will consider the possibility of bringing in an amendment at a later stage. I shall not of course press the amendment at this time of night, but perhaps the noble Lord, Lord Seebohm, could talk to my noble friend with a view to incorporating an amendment into the Bill at a later stage.
Lord Seebohm: I strongly support the amendment. In view of what the noble Baroness, Lady Faithfull, has said and the fact that the consultative document has now been issued, it may be better to hear what the Minister says before considering whether it is worth pressing the matter tonight.
Lord Dean of Beswick: I should like to refer briefly to the homeless people in relation to what the noble Baroness said in moving the amendment. The stage is being reached where accommodation for them is costing local authorities so much, certainly in the centre of London, that it may well pay the Government to take on board the initial payments referred to as key money. It may well be in the interests both of the Chancellor of the Exchequer and

129
of the community as a whole to consider that before the results of the consultative document are forthcoming.
The Earl of Caithness: I am grateful to my noble friend Lady Faithfull for the manner in which she introduced the amendment. She is quite right to say that I wrote to her on 20th July and met many of the points covered in the amendment. I draw attention to Amendments Nos. 143 and 153 in my name, in which I cover most of the points raised in Amendment No. 92. I therefore hope that my noble friend may feel able to withdraw the amendment.
My noble friend raised one important point which we have not yet covered relating to houses in multiple occupation. The reason we have not yet tabled an amendment is that, as the Committee will be aware, we have just issued a consultation document and invited responses. Clearly it will take some time to receive those responses, although we hope they will he in by 1st September. It will take further time to consider them, analyse them and draft the necessarily fairly complicated provisions.
Therefore, it is most unlikely that we shall be able to do that in time for the Bill, but I am sure that my noble friend is fully aware of the Government's commitment to do something in future legislation, which is foreshadowed by the fact that we have put out a consultation paper. However, I shall be happy to see my noble friend, or any other noble Lord who wishes to speak to me on this matter, between now and later stages of the Bill.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: The Minister is certainly optimistic about making progress. Those of us who have taken a special interest in this matter cannot help but be amazed at the fortitude of the people who are faced with living in the conditions which this amendment seeks to put right. It is the absence of rights that concern us. Those tenants are bereft of any belief in their ability to do anything about their circumstances. Of course, at the end of the day all they want is a decent place in which to live and bring up their families.
The Minister said that there will be consultation. Can he say whether it will extend to groups such as the Bayswater project, which has produced an excellent document? Will the consultation include the homeless in Earls Court, who form another group? Will it be with the primary organisations such as the councils and the national agencies? Will it seek to get right down to the roots; that is, those groups seeking to help the people affected?
The Earl of Caithness: Copies of the consultation document have been sent to every local authority in England and to organisations and individuals interested in multiple occupation problems. Copies have also been placed in the Library and my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Wales will be consulting separately the Welsh local authorities and those interested in Wales.
If the noble Lord knows of an association which would like a copy of the consultation paper perhaps
130
he will let me know and we shall make sure that it gets one, because the wider the consultation, the better. However, the wider the consultation the longer it will take to analyse the problems and the less chance there will be of provisions being included in the Bill.
Lord Seebohm: Before the noble Baroness replies, I should like to add that I believe the whole situation relating to bed and breakfast accommodation, and the condition of the houses in London in particular, is so serious that I hope it will not be said that an amendment will not be put forward at a later stage. We must do something rather than wait for a year or two years.
Baroness Faithfull: I am grateful to all who have spoken to this amendment. I fully appreciate that my noble friend is well aware of how serious is the situation. The consultation paper itself says that currently about 4,000 management orders are made each year and that the number of houses in multiple occupation which are in poor condition, as the department's research has shown, far exceeds that figure. Clearly the research department within the Minister's department is well aware of the seriousness of the situation.
I hope that it will be possible to discuss the matter with the Minister and, as the noble Lord, Lord Seebohm, said, perhaps have an amendment to the Bill at a later stage. With that, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 45 [Interpretation of Part I]:
11.15 p.m.
Lord Graham of Edmonton Lord Graham of Edmonton moved Amendment No. 93:
Page 34, line II, after ("sub-tenancy") insert ("and a rental purchase agreement as defined in Regulation 10(1)(i) of The Housing Benefit (General) Regulations 1987, for so long as the title to the property has not been transferred to the rental purchaser").
The noble Lord said: In moving Amendment No. 93 I speak also to Amendment No. 172. This amendment deals with rental purchase. I believe that the Minister will be aware from his advisers that this is a phenomenon specifically related to conditions in the North. It is not exclusively related to the North, but from the evidence that I have read many of the councils have been very concerned at the plight of those who live in their areas and who have been induced to take up what appears to be a sensible arrangement but which has proved to be a nightmare for the poorer section of the community. It believes that it is undertaking a legitimate form of house purchase, but in fact it has been found that is not what it is.
In essence this amendment is seeking to add to that part of the Bill that relates to definitions. We are saying that a
"'tenancy' includes a sub-tenancy and an agreement for a tenancy or sub-tenancy; and".
We then insert,
"a rental purchase agreement as defined in Regulation (101(1)(i) of The Housing Benefit (General) Regulations 1987".

131
The regulation states:
"Rent. Subject to the following provisions of this regulation, the payments in respect of which housing benefit is payable in form of a rent rebate or allowance are the following periodical payments".
Under (i) the regulations state:
"payments under a rental purchase agreement, that is to say an agreement for the purchase of a dwelling under which the whole or part of the purchase price is to be paid in more than one instalment and the completion of the purchase is deferred until the whole or a specified part of the purchase price has been paid".
We all understand that in essence the way in which this scheme has been operated, it is nothing more than a hire-purchase agreement. That worries a great many people. I shall be grateful if the Minister will either accept the amendment or explain to those outside the Committee who are very worried that there is no need for this amendment and that they can retain or obtain better protection than they have from the operation of the law as it stands. I beg to move.
The Earl of Caithness: I believe that the noble Lord is also speaking to Amendment No. 172.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: That is correct.
The Earl of Caithness: Amendment No. 93 would give all rental purchasers who entered into agreements after this Bill, the status of tenants under this Bill, with all that that implies. But practically a rental purchaser is not an assured tenant. He is someone purchasing his property in instalments whose rights and obligations under his contract to purchase are different from those of a tenant under a lease. Amendment No. 93 would not help him very much. A rental purchaser enters into a fixed term contract with the vendor of the property he is purchasing. Therefore, he will not have the right to go to the rent assessment committee for it to consider the sum that he is paying for his property until the end of the fixed term, by which time he will own the property and it is already necessary to go to court to evict a rental purchaser, so he has some security.
Amendment No. 172 will bring rental purchasers within the scope of Section 11 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985. Section 11 is a very important section which sets out the repairing obligations of the landlord in relation to most leases of seven years or less, particularly periodic tenancies. I believe that many rental purchasers take on full repairing obligations in their contract and this amendment will put the liability on their vendors. However, I believe that many rental purchase agreements are for longer than seven years and this gives them a stake in the property greater than that of tenants on short or periodic leases and consistent with full repairing obligations.
Also, when an occupier takes on full repairing obligations this is normally reflected in the amount he pays by way of rent or charge, and in an agreement when this has happened it would be wrong to put the repairing obligation on the landlord. We believe that it would not be sensible to make a rental purchaser an assured tenant under the Bill when he has little to gain by it. We do indeed realise that there have been
132
problems with rental purchase for some people, and we are awaiting with interest the results of the AMA survey. However, I do not believe that these amendments are the way to help rental purchasers. I believe the main provisions of this Bill in enabling landlords to charge market rents will go a long way to changing the situation.
I can assure the noble Lord, Lord Graham of Edmonton, that the Government are alive to the problems; but, in view of what I have said, I wonder whether it might not be wise to withdraw the amendment until we see what the AMA has to say on the matter.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: I shall certainly do that. I note that the Minister has made no commitment until we see what the AMA survey throws up. I know from looking at the correspondence I have received in preparing for the debate that the residents of many—indeed most—local authorities in the North are very concerned. We think that this solution as a security measure would be the answer. We do not say that it is the only answer. I hope that those outside the Committee will think of this as an ongoing matter which has not been closed, dropped or killed by the Minister. However, he has given me sufficient hope to enable me to say that I doubt whether I shall be coming back to it during discussions on this Bill. Like the Minister, I shall await the findings of the survey. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Graham of Edmonton Lord Graham of Edmonton moved Amendment No. 94:
Page 34, line 30, at end insert—
("For the avoidance of doubt, in this Act, tenancy means:
Any grant of a right to occupy a dwelling-house as a residence, for occupation with exclusive possession at a term, whether or not at a rent, made between distinct parties intending to create legal relations.
There shall be a tenancy notwithstanding that in the case of an agreement which amounts to joint exclusive possession, the lawful joint occupants have entered into possession at different times.
In construing documents which purport to represent agreements to grant rights to occupy dwelling-houses, courts shall have regard to the true nature and effect of the transaction and shall determine from all the circumstances, including the conduct of contracting parties, the true nature and effect; the courts shall be astute to detect cases where documents do not reflect the true nature and effect of the agreement.").
The noble Lord said: This amendment deals with the position of licensees. Not for the first time, people outside the Chamber believe there is a problem while those inside the DoE believe that there is not a problem. That is because those in the DoE do not live in the real world. In this amendment we seek to define "tenancy" on the face of the Bill.
Landlords will not make use of the assured tenancy scheme unless there is an incentive for them to do so. There is every incentive for landlords to let on licences rather than to use the assured tenancy scheme or even the assured shorthold scheme. The creation of the excluded licence gives them even more incentive to do so. If the Government want to deal with the problem, they must make a clear ruling that is a disincentive to the use of licences.
In Committee in another place on 4th February the Minister stated that the courts were dealing with the problem. Although this was probably largely true in 1984 when the House of Lords decided the case of Street v. Mountford, in a series of cases since then the Court of Appeal has consistently undermined that judgment and made of the state of the law an inconsistent morass in substance and a narrow and pettifogging approach in method. I wish I had coined those words myself. They sound very good. I am happy to repeat them. They have been written for me by somebody else.
Those outside the Chamber consider there is a real problem that is not addressed in the Bill. If the Minister tells me that this is not the way to address the problem and that there is some other means, I shall be happy to listen to him. I beg to move.
The Earl of Caithness: This amendment deals with a very complicated issue which has preoccupied distinguished legal minds for many years. The judgment in the case of Street v. Mountford, was believed by many to be conclusive in this issue. In its wake many landlords and tenants recognised that they had entered into agreements which would be construed as tenancies in the courts, even though they were called licences. Since then the Court of Appeal's decision in the case of Antoniades v. Villiers has added further complications to the issues.
I think that it may just surprise the noble Lord, Lord Graham of Edmonton, to know that we in the DoE are aware there is a problem, the reason being that we are humans. We live in the real world. We have been, or are, tenants and we have been licensees. Therefore we understand some of the problems which exist. I know that it is difficult for some people to realise that fact, but we try to be as realistic as possible.
However, I am afraid that I must say to the noble Lord that we shall not solve the problems before us by this amendment. Indeed, I do not think that we shall even solve them by the provisions in the Bill, because a housing Bill is not the place to deal with a fundamental issue of landlord and tenant law—certainly not this one, which is one of the most complex.
The problem of non-exclusive occupation licences has come into sharp focus because of the different outcomes in the Court of Appeal decisions in the recent cases of AG Securities v. Vaughan and Antoniades v. Villiers. I understand that in the AG Securities case leave has been granted to appeal to this place and that the case should be heard in the autumn. It would be wrong for me to anticipate the outcome of the judgment, but I believe that we can expect a decision on the case which will be conclusive and enduring.
I believe that sham licences such as this amendment attempts to tackle are a product of a regime which has held down rents and made it difficult for landlords to repossess their property. We are tackling both those problems in this Bill. We offer the landlord in shorthold a guaranteed right of repossession for a tenancy at market rent. There will be no need or incentive for landlords to resort to
134
sham licences. If they do, I believe the courts will be astute to detect such shams, as they already are and as this amendment enjoins them to be, and some landlords will find they have created assured tenancies and given their tenants security of tenure.
Although I fully understand the point of the amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Graham of Edmonton, I cannot for the reasons I have given accept it. I hope that one day we shall be able to deal with the matter in its proper place; namely, in a Bill on landlord and tenant law. In the meantime, we hope that this Chamber, in another capacity, will sort out the law for us.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: I am most grateful to the Minister. He rests his case on the possibility of dealing with the issue in a landlord and tenant Act. However, we have not been without such Acts over the past three or four years, and though this problem has been in existence for longer than that the opportunity was not found to include it.
Nevertheless, I have heard what the Minister has said and those outside this place will read what he has said. If they prompt me to take some action in the future, I shall be most willing to listen to them. As I say, I am grateful to the Minister for having put on record what he has said on the matter. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 45 agreed to.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey Lord McIntosh of Haringey moved Amendment No. 95:
After Clause 45, insert the following new clause:
("Conditions in houses in multiple occupation.
.—(1) Subject to) section 126 below, this section shall have effect in relation to protection for assured tenants in houses in multiple occupation in the private rented sector.
(2) The relevant provisions of the Housing Act 1985 (as specified in Schedules 14 and 15 below) shall be amended to—

(a) repeal the requirement for a local authority to make a management order in respect of a house in multiple occupation before enforcing the management regulations;

(b) secure a standard procedure for the serving of notices requiring improvements by enabling authorities to serve all notices on the person responsible for the management of the house;

(c) provide for a single notice to the landlord of a house in multiple occupation whereby any of the powers of the local authority may be enforced; and

(d) place a duty on local authorities to enforce amenities notices in houses in multiple occupation.

(3) For the purposes of this section, the 'relevant provisions' shall be those provisions of the 1985 Act which relate to the matters specified in subsection (2) above and which are subject to amendment in Schedules 14 and 15 below.").
The noble Lord said: In moving this amendment it may be for the convenience of the Committee if I speak also to Amendment No. 170A.
The Earl of Caithness: Is the noble Lord not speaking also to Amendments Nos. 161 to 169 and to Amendment No. 179?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I must apologise to the Committee; it was indeed my intention to speak also to those amendments. With these amendments we return to the question of houses in multiple

135
occupation, which has already been raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Faithfull. In bringing forward the amendments we recognise that the Government have indicated—as the Minister of State indicated on Report in another place—that there are further amendments to be brought forward by the Government and, as the Minister said here today, that there are amendments which cannot be tabled now but which may have to be introduced later, perhaps after the passage of this Bill.
There are certain things here which we consider it necessary to deal with now, because we believe that there are improvements in repairs notices, in addition to those which have already been placed on the Marshalled List by the Government, which could be made relatively simple and which would enormously strengthen the Bill's ability to deal with that great problem. I say "great problem" advisedly. Houses in multiple occupation in the private rented sector are at the heart of some of the country's worst housing conditions. Four out of five houses in multiple occupation lack a satisfactory means of escape from fire.
Surveys have shown that nearly half of the houses in multiple occupation would justify a management order under the Housing Act 1985. In 61 per cent. of houses in multiple occupation tenants lack access to a full range of basic facilities. In Amendment No. 95 we propose to simplify the provisions of the 1985 Act. In other words, we want to repeal the requirement that a local authority go through the formality of making a management order before enforcing management regulations.
We are looking for a standard procedure for serving notices requiring improvements so that notices can be served on the person responsible for the management of the house. We are not looking for different people or for someone who is not responsible for managing the house.
In subsection (2)(c) we provide for a single notice to enforce any of a local authority's powers. That is again referred to in Amendment No. 170A, which provides that all the notices under the 1985 Act can be made part of a single notice. In other words, a notice relating to the power to require the execution of works to render premises fit, a service and contents of overcrowding notice, and notices relating to means of escape from fire, powers to limit the number of occupants of a house, and so on, could all be made part of one notice instead of there being separate notices. Subsection (2)(d) places a duty on local authorities to enforce amenities notices in houses in multiple occupation.
I have forgotten the numbers, but the amendments to which the Minister referred when he corrected me cover a number of other points about houses in multiple occupation which are of great significance.
The defects in houses in multiple occupation to which we have referred—the lack of basic amenities, frequent overcrowding, unsatisfactory means of escape from fire and the general poor management—are problems which are readily understood by government and have been understood by all governments over a period of years.
136
We do not feel that it is good enough for government to continue to put off all the simplifications of the law which are necessary to deal with the problems. It is not satisfactory to put them off to subsequent legislation. We are grateful for the improvements in the drafting of the Bill which have been made. We believe that the simplifications now proposed will make the law more effective. We hope that they will find favour with the Government. I beg to move.
The Earl of Caithness: These amendments deal with a subject which is only tangentially related to the subject matter of the Bill but is one about which the Government are concerned. Much research, including some by my department, has been done into houses in multiple occupation. It has revealed that the conditions in many of them are poor. The department appointed an environmental health adviser who has been visiting local authorities all over the country, finding out about their problems. His visits have confirmed the research findings and also confirmed the Government's view about local authorities' powers to deal with houses in multiple occupation.
Most local authorities accept that the powers they have under Part XI of the Housing Act 1985 are very extensive and generally suitable for the task of improving HMOs and bringing them up to standard. However local authorities have made the point that they would like to see the powers streamlined in certain respects. Accordingly, my honourable friend the then Minister for Housing and Planning made an announcement in another place on 9th June that the department would be consulting local authorities about ways in which their present powers could be strengthened. As I said, a consultation paper was issued on 18th July.
Members of the Committee will be aware that some of the proposals in that paper are very similar to the proposals contained in these amendments. The paper proposes that the management regulations should apply to all houses in multiple occupation automatically, as Amendments Nos. 95 and 165 and the subsequent repeals in Amendment No. 179 would provide. It proposes that there should be a common single notice procedure, as does Amendment No. 95 and in some respects Amendment No. 170A. It proposes appropriate changes to the definition of the person having control, as do Amendments Nos. 161 to 164 and 167 to 169. The paper invites comments by the beginning of September. One important issue on which it invites local authority views, and an issue not addressed by these amendments, is the definition of a house in multiple occupation, since there is evidence that local authorities differ widely in their interpretation of the term. It is important that we should get an agreed definition before we start changing the powers applicable to an HMO.
I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh of Haringey, will accept that the Government share his objectives of improving the condition of HMOs and that matters are very much in hand. I hope that as a result of those assurances he will be able to withdraw this amendment.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: The Minister's reference to the former Minister for Housing and Planning confirms what had only been rumour up till now, that he himself has changed his responsibilities to include I think at least housing, or some additional responsibilities within the department. He seems unable to confirm that; I thought it was now confirmed. I was about to congratulate him on his increased responsibilities; if that is true, I congratulate him sincerely.
I listened carefully to what the Minister said. There is a very difficult problem here. We do not want any further delay. We should like these protections, which have not been adequately argued against, I am afraid, put into the Bill now rather than waiting for a later stage. I appreciate the virtues of consultation, the work that is being done within the department and the appointment of the environmental advisers. But these are urgent matters; they will not brook further delay. If we have these amendments wrong, I should like to talk to the Government about them. However I should not like there to be any delay later than the Report stage of the Bill before we see something better on the statute book to deal with the evident abuses which have taken place and are still taking place in houses in multiple occupation.
I accept the sincerity of' the Minister's response. I know that he is concerned with the matter and that he recognises that this is one of the worst areas of housing provision in the country. If together we can work for a better way of overcoming the problem here, I think we should do so. But in order to do so it is right that I should beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey Lord McIntosh of Haringey moved Amendment No. 96:
After Clause 45, insert the following new clause:
('Notification to tenant of change of landlord
.—(1) If the interest of a landlord under a tenancy of premises which consist of or include a dwelling is assigned, both the person who was the landlord immediately before the assignment ('the old landlord') and the person who is the landlord immediately after the assignment ('the new landlord') shall give to the tenant notice in writing of the assignment and of the new landlord's name and address in accordance with paragraph 28A of Schedule 14 below.
(2) Section 3 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 shall he amended in accordance with that paragraph.").
The noble Lord said: In moving Amendment No. 96 I should like to speak also to Amendment No. 174 which perhaps contains the meat of this pair of amendments. The problem here has been referred to on a number of occasions in Committee over the last week. It is that many tenants do not know who their landlord is. That is not simply because of the very complicated abuse of the law by people such as Mr. Nicholas van Hoogstraten. It is true of a very large number of landlords who may not even be trying to evade the law, but who leave their tenants in a position where they cannot effectively exercise their rights.
When one looks at the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985, one could be forgiven for thinking at first sight that all of the problems had been resolved by that Act. But unfortunately that is not the case. Section
138
3(1) of that Act requires the new landlord to tell the tenant his name and address. But of course if the tenant does not know who the new landlord is how can he institute the criminal proceedings which are made possible by Section 3(1) of the Act? It is a Catch-22 situation as regards the tenant. Unless he knows who the new landlord is and is informed by the person who is in a position to tell him, he will find it very difficult to implement his rights under Section 3(1).
Section (5)(1) of the Act states that the rent book should contain the landlord's name and address. That sounds all right, but it only applies to weekly rent. If the tenant has not been told in the first place of the landlord's name and address, how can he see that his rights are enforced? Section 3(3) of the 1985 Act, as inserted by Section 50 of the 1987 Act, states that the old landlord is responsible for breaches of the tenancy until the tenant has been told of the landlord's new name and address. But, in practice, if he has not been told it is no good the tenant pursuing the old landlord because the old landlord does not have the control over the property to do any work that is necessary to correct a breach of the tenancy. If he is not worth suing, the right is worthless.
Section 47 of the 1987 Act states that any demand for rent or service charges is invalid unless it contains the name and address of the landlord. But that only applies to variable service charges and not to fixed service charges. Therefore, we need corrections in that respect as well.
Finally, Section 48 of the 1987 Act states that the liability for rent or service charges is suspended unless the landlord gives the tenant notice of an address on which notices can be served. That again sounds all right because it covers rent as well as service charges, but still tenants who do not know their rights are in danger of paying the rent demanded, even if Section 48 has not been fully complied with.
No one doubts that the 1987 Act, like the 1985 Act, was designed honourably to deal with the problem of property changing hands to the detriment of the tenant's interest. But we are saying that that Act has not worked yet and that more action is required to tighten up the law. That is what the amendments are intended to do. If the Minister says that this is only tangential to the purpose of the Housing Act, as he said in response to an earlier amendment, I can only say that the protection of tenants in private rented accommodation, which is what we are talking about, should be central to the Government's housing policies whether or not it is central to the stated purposes of this Bill.
If the Bill is to be a coherent attack on housing problems, these problems should be tackled. We suggest in these amendments a particular way of tackling a particular, very serious problem. I beg to move.
Lord Ross of Newport: I wish to support very strongly the amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, who has highlighted the problems that still exist. There are anomalies; the situation should be tightened up. I used to live not very far from this Chamber in rented accommodation. I

139
finally bought the accommodation as a tenant on a long lease, but I never knew who the landlord was. When I bought it, the landlord was Legal and General Insurance. Then it was sold on to somebody in the Channel Islands, the United States or heaven knows where. I never knew, to the day I sold it, who owned the property. I might have been able to find out under the 1985 and 1987 legislation. If that is so, I was remiss in not doing so. There are still anomalies which have been highlighted by the noble Lord. I strongly support the amendments. I believe that tenants should know who is their immediate landlord.
The Earl of Caithness: I entirely agree that it is important for tenants to know who is their landlord and how he can be contacted. Those points were forcefully made in the analysis of the Nugee Committee, whose report on the management of privately owned blocks of flats provided a basis for the Landlord and Tenant Act 1987. The noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, has used most of the answers that I was going to give him. He looks at it from one side and I look at it from the other.
The noble Lord asked how a tenant can discover the name of a new landlord. The Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 already contains provisions concerning the disclosure of a landlord's identity on request to the person demanding the rent or the landlord's agent; about the disclosure of the names and directors of corporate landlords; about the duty of a new landlord; and, if the tenancy of premises consisting of or including a dwelling is assigned, about the duty to inform the tenants of his name and address. Failure to do so is a criminal offence.
The provisions were strengthened in the Landlord and Tenant Act 1987. Section 50 of the Act provides that, in addition to the duty on the new landlord, the former landlord should remain liable to the tenants for any breach of covenant or obligation to the tenants until the tenants are notified of the assignment and of the new landlord's name and address.
Contrary to what the noble Lord has said, I believe that that gives a powerful incentive to a former owner to ensure that the necessary information is supplied, since no one wishes to remain liable for matters over which he has no direct control. In addition, Section 47 of the 1987 Act provides that a written demand for rent or service charges must contain the landlord's name and address, and, if the address is outside the jurisdiction of the High Court, an address in England or Wales at which notices and proceedings may be served on him. If that information is not provided, the tenant is not liable to pay unless and until it is forthcoming. Those sections and Section 48, which requires a landlord to notify tenants of an address for service of notices, have significantly strengthened the tenant's position as regards his ability to identify and contact his current landlord. It makes no difference to the tenant who provides him with that information. Therefore, I can see little advantage in imposing a duty on the former landlord after he has assigned his interest.
140
However, as this is the last amendment and as the noble Lord, Lord Ross of Newport, has supported so much of what we want, perhaps I may be allowed to consider the matter between now and another stage.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: The Minister is as disarming as ever. I am not entirely satisfied with his analysis of the situation. He has already agreed that there are obligations on the old landlord—for example, in respect of breaches of tenancy agreements. The obligation which we propose—that the old landlord should have the responsibility of notifying the tenants of the last known address of the new landlord—is not particularly onerous. It ought not to cause the kind of difficulty which the Government appear to see. However, in view of the Minister's undertaking to take the matter away and look at it again, which I assume implies recognition that the matter is one which could and should be dealt with in the Bill if a suitable way can be found for doing it, I think it is proper for me to beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: I beg to move that the House do now resume.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
House resumed.
House adjourned at ten minutes before midnight.

  REMAND SYSTEM: PRIVATE SECTOR INVOLVEMENT
  REMAND SYSTEM: PRIVATE SECTOR INVOLVEMENT
  AGRICULTURAL PESTICIDES: RESIDUES IN FOOD
  AGRICULTURAL PESTICIDES: RESIDUES IN FOOD
  NEXT STEPS INITIATIVE
  NEXT STEPS INITIATIVE
  NORTHERN IRELAND: COMMUNITY SERVICES GRANT AID
  NORTHERN IRELAND: COMMUNITY SERVICES GRANT AID
  ENVIRONMENT AND DEVELOPMENT REPORT: UK RESPONSE
  ENVIRONMENT AND DEVELOPMENT REPORT: UK RESPONSE
  VEHICLE INSPECTORATE: EXECUTIVE AGENCY STATUS
  VEHICLE INSPECTORATE: EXECUTIVE AGENCY STATUS