Sitting of 29 March 1988

Preamble
The House met at half-past Two o'clock
PRAYERS
[MR. SPEAKER in the Chair]
PRIVATE BUSINESS
  BRITISH RAILWAYS ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL
  Considered; to be read the Third time.
Oral Answers to Questions
  EMPLOYMENT

    Schools-Employers (Compacts)
    Mrs. Maureen Hicks: To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what representations he has had from groups of local employers and schools who wish to develop compacts; and if he will make a statement.
    The Secretary of State for Employment (Mr. Norman Fowler): The Government are making available £3 million a year for each of the next four years to encourage the development of 12 employer-school compacts within inner city areas in England. It is also proposed to support a further two compacts in Scotland and one in Wales. The Manpower Services Commission has received a number of inquiries from interested employers and schools.
    Mrs. Hicks: Does my right hon. Friend agree that even more progress could be made on reducing unemployment on the one hand, and skill shortages on the other, if we were to develop compacts in my area? We are constantly faced with the conflicting problems of skill shortages and unemployment. Does my right hon. Friend agree that developing compacts as they are now envisaged would foster in our young people, before they leave school, a greater awareness, understanding and direct experience of industry, thereby, we hope, increasing the number of pupils who might consider taking up employment in industry after leaving school?
    Mr. Fowler: I agree with what my hon. Friend has said. The whole concept of compacts is that employers should guarantee a job with training to young people, particularly those from inner city schools, who meet agreed standards of achievement and motivation. Obviously, we should like to develop the idea in the west midlands, among other areas. I know, of course, of my hon. Friend's interest in Wolverhampton.
    Mr. Sheerman: The Secretary of State will know that the Opposition are very much in favour of the compact idea. Indeed, ILEA pioneered the idea in central London with great success, and many people — including the Government — are now modelling their plans on that success.
    868
    There are dangers, however. Targeting is very important. Does the right hon. Gentleman realise that targeting the youngsters who need the help provided by the compact—those less likely to obtain qualifications—is what the game is all about? Is he confident that employers will deliver on the compact, when they have signally failed to deliver on the general contribution to training over the past 10 years? The right hon. Gentleman knows —because he is carrying out a full investigation into training —that the voluntary principle has not worked.
    Mr. Fowler: The hon. Gentleman must be fair about, for example, the London compact. It is certainly true that ILEA has been very much involved with that, but so has the London enterprise agency, which involves companies in the private sector.
    That, I think, is the reply to the hon. Gentleman's question : companies have become involved with the London compact. The aim — I agree with the hon. Gentleman — is to give a good education and an opportunity in employment, particularly in difficult areas such as the inner cities. We have 12 pilot schemes, and I hope that we shall learn from them.
    Mr. Brandon-Bravo: There can be little doubt of the benefit of industrial and commercial links with education, but does my right hon. Friend agree with our right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Science that the presence of city technology colleges in some of our cities will act as a stimulus and a catalyst for even more compact schemes throughout the country?
    Mr. Fowler: I agree with my hon. Friend, and I believe that the closer together that we bring industry and schools, the better it will be for both sides.

    Labour Statistics
    Dr. Thomas: To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what is the most recent percentage unemployment figure in the EEC.
    Mr. Teddy Taylor: To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what is the current net rate of unemployment in the United Kingdom and the EEC, respectively : and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Fowler: According to estimates compiled by the statistical office of the European Communities on a harmonised basis, the unemployment rate in the United Kingdom in January was 9·4 per cent. compared with 10·4 per cent. in the European Community as a whole. Over the past year our unemployment rate has fallen faster than in any other industrial country and is now lower than many of our European competitors, including France. Italy, Belgium and the Netherlands.
    Dr. Thomas: Is not the optimism of the Secretary of State and his colleagues short-term? Has he had an opportunity to study the report published last week by the United Nations Economic Commission for Europe, which looks specifically at the longer-term position and warns against the decline in the British economy and other European economies —[Interruption.] Conservative Members may not like long-term analysis, but they have to face it. The report warns of the importance of pursuing expansionary fiscal policies to prevent European stagnation in the longer term.
    Mr. Fowler: I do not think that any economic analyst would agree with the hon. Gentleman that there is the

    869
    slightest sign of decline in the British economy. Also, the Budget will considerably help employment. On the matter of trends, I have to point out that what has taken place in this country has not occurred over only two or three months. Unemployment has come down for 19 months in a row. One of the parts of the United Kingdom in which unemployment has come down most is Wales.
    Mr. Teddy Taylor: Does my right hon. Friend agree that apart from Britain's splendid example, where we are pursuing excellent Thatcherite policies, there is a serious problem in the continent of Europe and the rest of the Common Market, particularly by comparison with EFTA? Does that not suggest that we should be reviewing the excessive expenditure, high protectionism and excessive bureaucracy of the European Economic Community compared with EFTA and other parts of the world?
    Mr. Fowler: The latest EFTA figures show that unemployment has gone up slightly over the past month. I do not want to make too much of that. —[Interruption.] As my hon. Friend the Member for Southend, East (Mr. Taylor) rightly says, it is below the Common Market average. What pleases me is that unemployment is going down in this country at a faster rate than in any other industrialised country. We should take all the opportunities offered by 1992 and the open market, which I think fits in with at least part of what my hon. Friend is urging.
    Mr. Campbell-Savours: Do not the Europeans, to some extent, show us the way? Does the Secretary of State know that four firms have nearly disappeared in my constituency over the past two months and have been saved only by the good work of Enterprise West Cumbria? In part, the reason has been the failure of the British clearing bank system. Why can we not have the same level of support from our banks in the regions as is available in other parts of the European Community?
    Mr. Fowler: Unemployment is coming down in all regions of the country. Some of the biggest falls have been in regions such as the west midlands, the north and the north-west where the problem has been greatest. If the hon. Gentleman is considering disincentives to employment, I hope that he will point out to his Front Bench the disincentive of what happened at Dundee and how that has destroyed jobs for literally hundreds of people there.
    Mr. Forth: Is my right hon. Friend aware that unemployment in the United States is now about 5 per cent.? Does he draw any conclusions from that fact—such as that the European Community is overregulated and suffers from excessive bureaucracy and hardening of the economic arteries? Will my right hon. Friend persuade his colleagues in Europe to draw the obvious lessons from the United States?
    Mr. Fowler: That figure shows some of the things that my hon. Friend has mentioned. Certainly we need to knock down the remaining barriers to trade. In addition, it shows how much further there is still to go and the opportunity that we have. There is no doubt that over the past two years our record inside the Common Market has been the best of all member countries.
    Mr. Burns: Does my right hon. Friend agree that this country has one of the highest percentages of the population in work at 66 per cent.? Does he also agree that
    870
    a far higher percentage of people are in work in this country than in the European Economic Community, which has an average of 57 per cent.? Does he also agree that the record fall in unemployment rates in the past two years is due to the Government's economic policies and initiatives by the Department of Employment?
    Mr. Fowler: All those facts are correct. I would only add that I do not believe that we should be remotely complacent about our position. We want unemployment to fall even further. I believe that unemployment will continue to fall under the Government's economic policies.
    Rev. Martin Smyth: While I welcome the fact that there has been a fall in the unemployment rate, has the Secretary of State consulted his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, and perhaps even the Irish Government, about the possibility of introducing the fair employment legislation for Northern Ireland into Great Britain especially in view of the statements from the Commission for Racial Equality, which has said that there has been no appreciable improvement in the past 20 years in the prospects of the black community?
    Mr. Fowler: I would not accept that analysis of the position. I believe that there has been a substantial improvement. Of course, I am continually in contact with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland.
    Mr. Meacher: Before the Secretary of State is dazed by his own complacency on this matter, will he acknowledge that on the counting basis used by all previous Governments, including Tory Governments, the number of unemployed today is still 3,329,000, nearly three times the level that the Government inherited? Is he aware that more than half the alleged cut in the past 18 months is due to the increased numbers of people on Government schemes plus the tighter availability-for-work rules? Is he also aware that the Government's recently published labour force survey shows that for every seven persons knocked off the unemployment registers, only one new job was created? Is it not clear that the Government's unemployment figures are scarcely worth the paper that they are written on?
    Mr. Fowler: No, I do not accept a word of what the hon. Gentleman has said. Certainly the Government are not complacent. On the common basis of the European Community's statistical office, the figures show clearly that the unemployment rate in this country is below the European Common Market average. There is no question about that. [HON. MEMBERS: "The right hon. Gentleman's figures."] No, that is according to the EC's figures.
    I am bound to say to the hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Meacher) that, after Dundee, we will not take lectures from the Opposition on reducing unemployment. The unions which the hon. Member for Oldham, West so discreditably supported at the weekend have destroyed jobs, not created them. That is the responsibility of the hon. Member and his friends.
    Mr. Knox: To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many people were out of work in the Staffordshire, Moorlands parliamentary constituency at the most recent count; and what the figure was two years ago.
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Employment (Mr. John Lee): On 11 February 1988 the number of unemployed claimants in the Staffordshire, Moorlands parliamentary constituency was 2,700. The corresponding figure for February 1986 was 3,700.
    Mr. Knox: Obviously there has been a significant reduction in unemployment in my constituency over the past two years. Does my hon. Friend agree that the unemployment rate in my constituency is still too high? When does he expect that the figure will be down to the 1973 level?
    Mr. Lee: Of course I agree with my hon. Friend that the figures are too high. As he knows, we are not in the business of making specific forecasts, but we are slowly and steadily winning the unemployment battle. I place on record the contribution made by tourism to employment in my hon. Friend's constituency. Alton Towers will employ 1,400 people this year.

    Training Schemes
    Mr. Simon Hughes: To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many young people in the London borough of Southwark are on Government training schemes; and if he will make a statement.
    The Minister of State, Department of Employment (Mr. John Cope): Some 530 young people are currently taking part in YTS schemes based in Southwark. They are benefiting from a structured training programme which will enhance their future job prospects.
    Mr. Hughes: Does the Minister realise that there is still a great skills mismatch between the training offered and the jobs available? Is he aware that in the docklands, where there is a great boom, most of the jobs—studies show that the figure is three quarters—go to labour recruited from outside the area rather than to people trained and recruited inside the area? Are he and his colleagues making progress, perhaps in the European Community where we were told discussions were taking place, to ensure that local youngsters can be trained locally and then employed locally, particularly in boom areas in Britain?
    Mr. Cope: My answer referred to schemes based in Southwark, for which we have the figures. Obviously, some young people living in Southwark take part in schemes based elsewhere or in national schemes which have places in Southwark, and, for that matter, some young people in Southwark-based schemes no doubt come from outside the borough. The London labour market is not in sealed parcels, but we are doing our best to ensure that local people get local jobs.

    Strikes
    Mr. David Martin: To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many working days were lost through strikes in November 1987; and what was the comparable figure for November 1978.
    Mr. Fowler: In November 1978 almost 2 million working days were lost through strikes. In November 1987 the figure was 103,000—the lowest November figure for 29 years.
    Mr. Martin: Is not the fact that the November 1987 figure was one of the lowest for many years a tribute to
    872
    the wisdom of the Government's industrial relations policies, which are recognised by some unions, though not by the Transport and General Workers Union, whose job-destroying attitudes apparently continue unabated?
    Mr. Fowler: There is certainly no question but that the TGWU has found a new way of destroying jobs, which will be widely condemned throughout the country. I have no doubt that the Government's reform of industrial relations law has led to some of the improvements that we have seen in those figures.
    Mr. Madden: How many days were lost in strike action in Dundee in the early part of this decade when, as a direct result of Government action, 3,000 Dundee jute workers were redundant—
    Mr. Speaker: Order. The question relates to strikes in November 1987.
    Mr. Madden: I am asking the Secretary of State how many strikes took place in 1979 and 1980 when 3,000 jute workers in Dundee were made redundant as a direct result of Government action. Does the Secretary of State believe that there will be more strikes, or fewer strikes, if employers blackmail Britain into selecting particular unions and force employees to join those unions?
    Mr. Fowler: That is a particularly pathetic defence of the TGWU's position. The figure that I can give is that the TGWU has probably lost Dundee more than 1,000 jobs.
    Mr. Bill Walker: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the lesson of November is that the Government's legislation has worked and has shown clearly how effective it is? Surely another lesson that has come out of Dundee is that more legislation will probably be required to deal with such situations. Ford was prepared to come to Dundee, but required one-union agreement, and perhaps we should bring in legislation to make that possible in future.
    Mr. Fowler: I hope, first and foremost, that the unions concerned come to their senses and take the sensible action that is necessary before we need to consider further legislation.
    Mr. Meacher: If the Government are so concerned—[Interruption.]
    Mr. Speaker: Order.
    Mr. Meacher: If the Government are so concerned about the number of working days lost through strikes, why are they so indifferent to the far greater number of working days lost through industrial injury? Is the Minister not ashamed of the fact that the fatal and serious accident rate has increased since 1979 by 36 per cent. in manufacturing? Are not the Government directly responsible because they have cut the factory inspectorate by 20 per cent. and the annual number of prosecutions by 17 per cent.? —[Interruption.]
    Mr. Speaker: Order. Hon. Members should not point across the Chamber. I am listening to the hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Meacher).
    Mr. Fowler: The hon. Gentleman's supplementary question has nothing whatever to do with the original question, but clearly we are concerned about industrial injuries and all our policies will be pursued to seek to reduce them. The hon. Gentleman should recognise that

    873
    the number of working days lost in each of the past two years is the lowest for 10 years and the number of stoppages in each of the past three years is the lowest since 1940. That is the Government's achievement and it contrasts strongly with the industrial anarchy that the hon. Gentleman left behind him.

    River Holidays
    Mr. Brazier: To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what is being done to promote river holidays in the United Kingdom.
    Mr. Lee: Inland waterway holidays are marketed by the industry itself as well as the tourist boards and the British Tourist Authority overseas. I recently met the chairman of the British Waterways Board, and the chairman of the English tourist board and British Tourist Authority for a useful exchange of views on how the tourism potential of inland waterways could best be achieved.
    Mr. Brazier: That is welcome news indeed. Will my hon. Friend comment on what proportion of the British Waterways Board's income is derived from leisure? On the subject of water holidays, I commend to him that excellent book, "Three Men in a Boat" as an insight to the coming elections in the Labour party.
    Mr. Lee: In regard to the latter part of my hon. Friend's question about "Three Men in a Boat", I am surprised that the hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Meacher) has not put his oar into that particular boat. No doubt there is still time. In answer to the first part of my hon. Friend's question, the British Waterways Board receives about 43 per cent. of its earned income, excluding grant-aid, from leisure and tourism, amounting to about £2·75 million.
    Mr. Corbett: As inland waterways include canals, what help is available to promote canals in and around the city of Birmingham, given that it has more canals than Venice?
    Mr. Lee: Section 4 grants are available for the development of tourism projects associated with canals. Indeed, a number of section 4 grants recently have been given to similar projects; for example, the National Waterways museum in Gloucester and the Waveney river centre on the Norfolk Broads. Grants are available.
    Mr. Harry Greenway: Will my hon. Friend persuade the board to restore horse-drawn canal boats, which were very scenic in my constituency on the Grand Union canal in past years and are an excellent holiday for families and friends?
    Mr. Lee: My hon. Friend never misses an opportunity to bring the horse, his favourite animal, into his questions. I am sure that the point that he made will be considered by the British Waterways Board.
    Mr. O'Brien: Will the Minister advise the House what discussions took place about mooring fees during his meeting with the chairman of the British Waterways Board? Is he aware that the increase in mooring fees has been so great that many people who use the rivers and canals are having second thoughts because they cannot afford the increase? Will the Minister prevail upon the chairman of the British Waterways Board to look at the situation and ensure that increases are not above the level of inflation?
    Mr. Lee: I shall certainly draw the attention of the chairman of the British Waterways Board to the hon.
    874
    Gentleman's point about mooring fees. I understand that the level of charges essentially is for the commercial judgment and decision of the board.

    "Training for Employment"
    Mr. Oppenheim: To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will make a statement on the implications for Derbyshire of the White Paper on "Training for Employment".
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Employment (Mr. Patrick Nicholls): In Derbyshire, as elsewhere, the employment training programme will provide a wide range of high-quality training opportunities for unemployed people, to meet their individual needs and those of the local labour market.
    Mr. Oppenheim: Will the 3,132 people in Derbyshire currently involved in the community programme and their agents be involved in the new adult training scheme? What guarantee can my hon. Friend provide about the quality of those training programmes?
    Mr. Nicholls: There will be a minimum of 170,000 community programme-type places in the new programme. My hon. Friend is entirely right to highlight the question of quality. The task of the Manpower Services Commission was to draw up a scheme which would provide quality training. It is satisfied that it has been able to do that and my right hon. Friend has accepted its recommendations in full.
    Mr. Duffy: Is the Minister aware that there is a lack of credibility in the White Paper's implications for South Yorkshire? There is a genuine fear among employers and trade unions that the programme cannot possibly provide the number of jobs and the required skills to assist an economy that badly needs revitalisation. The Minister will have to convince South Yorkshire that his claim—
    Mr. Speaker: Order. The question is about Derbyshire.
    Mr. Nicholls: In so far as Derbyshire and Amber Valley share similar problems, I am sure the hon. Gentleman will agree that there is a responsibility on all of us to try to allay genuine fears. If there are people in areas that are of concern to him who have these fears, I hope he will point out that the Manpower Services Commission's recommendations were unanimous and were accepted in full. I hope he will also point out that there are people on the Manpower Services Commission who represent not only local authority interests, but trade unions commissioners as well.

    Regional Aid
    Sir John Farr: To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if the advice of his Department is sought before a regional development grant is arranged for a company contemplating moving itself and its work force to another area.
    Mr. Lee: The regional development grant scheme is essentially automatic. If a project meets the published criteria, the project will normally be approved and grant paid by the operating department without reference to the Department of Employment.
    Sir John Farr: I thank my hon. Friend for his reply, but will he bear in mind that these very substantial grants can

    875
    lead to a considerable distortion of trade? Will he make sure that in future his Department is kept aware when grants of considerable size—say, up to £1 million—are made available to firms to move to a neighbouring town, because they can completely distort the local employment picture?
    Mr. Lee: I take my hon. Friend's point, but I think he is referring to the regional development grant, which has been automatic. Applications for this grant cannot be made after Thursday of this week, but regional selective assistance will continue.
    Mr. Gareth Wardell: The Minister has just said that the last date to apply for this grant is Thursday of this week. In the light of that will he, first, monitor the nature of automatic grants that are made available in Europe to ensure that firms coming here for the first time to extend their plants or to set up on the green field sites are not put at a disadvantage? Secondly, will he publish the criteria for regional selective assistance so that firms fully know what they are entitled to now that the regional development grant is to be phased out?
    Mr. Lee: Both the hon. Gentleman's questions are matters for my ministerial colleagues in the Department of Trade and Industry, not for me.
    Mr. Holt: My hon. Friend will recall that a couple of years ago the Government quite arbitrarily changed the rules that enabled grants to be paid to employees moving from one area to another. As the Ministry of Defence has 600 vacancies for administrative and clerical assistants and is having to engage large numbers of agency staff, what liaison is there between my hon. Friend's Department and the Ministry of Defence to try to alleviate that shortage by helping people to move from parts of the country where there is high unemployment to the London area?
    Mr. Lee: We are in contact with other Government Departments about such matters, and our employment service and the MSC keep a very close eye on opportunities for jobs and job creation.

    Insolvency
    Mr. Rooker: To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many persons have benefited from the insolvency provisions of the Employment Protection Act in the midland region during the current financial year.
    Mr. Nicholls: The total for the first 11 months of this financial year was 11,876.
    Mr. Rooker: Can the Minister explain how the former employees of Midland Professional Cleaning Services could benefit from these provisions, bearing in mind that the company ceased trading, having been paid by the supermarket for which it was cleaning? It is not in liquidation and it has never filed returns to Companies House. Even though these two dozen people are still cleaning the same supermarket, they have lost about six weeks' wages—taken by the company—which they do not stand a chance of getting back simply because the company is not in liquidation. How can they be covered and seek the protection and the benefit of these insolvency provisions?
    Mr. Nicholls: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his courtesy in giving me notice that he was going to ask that
    876
    supplementary question. I know that he has been extremely active in contacting my Department to see whether anything can be done to help his constituents. The problem is that under this legislation, passed by the last Labour Government in 1976, my Department is in a position to help only where companies have become insolvent. I have made it my business to look at this question, and, as I understand it, the hon. Gentleman is entirely right.
    This company is not insolvent, and therefore under the present state of the legislation nothing can be done. All I would say to the hon. Gentleman is that, apart from the legal remedies which his constituents have, if, for some reason, the company ever were to go into a state of insolvency I hope that at that stage he will contact me again, because I have a great deal of sympathy with the plight of his constituents.

    Rural Areas
    Mr. Matthew Taylor: To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will make a statement on his Department's plans to encourage growth in employment in rural areas.
    Mr. Cope: Our Department is playing its part with other interested Departments to help rural economies expand and diversify. Our key aim is to encourage enterprise by providing the necessary advice and support.
    Mr. Taylor: I am sure the Minister will agree, and I am certain that the rest of the House will agree, that, to judge from the paucity of his reply, there is a distressing contrast between the Government's emphasis on urban deprivation and that relating to rural deprivation in areas such as my own. Nevertheless, given that the Minister has said that he is working with his colleagues, will he seek the extension of the assisted areas map, particularly to the United Downs area in Cornwall, given the job losses currently happening in the tin industry there?
    Mr. Cope: I do not agree with the hon. Gentleman. The figures indicate that unemployment in rural development areas is below the national average. I will certainly look into his last point.
    Mr. Warren: Will my hon. Friend look at the situation in the East Sussex and Kent rural development area, where unemployment is higher than the national average, and where there is a strong feeling that window dressing is more important than new projects? Will he liaise with other Government Departments on this subject, which is causing considerable concern to my constituents?
    Mr. Cope: Yes, I will certainly look into it if my lion. Friend will send me particulars of the matter that concerns him.

    Steel Industry
    Mr. Roy Hughes: To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will make a statement about the trend in the numbers of employees in the steel industry.
    Mr. Nicholls: According to the most recently published figures, the number of employees in employment in the iron and steel industries fell by an estimated 2,500 in the year to January 1988.
    Mr. Hughes: Does the Minister appreciate that, with privatisation on the agenda, there is now considerable

    877
    concern among steel workers because they have noticed that with the phoenix companies already created there has been a tendency to downgrade conditions of employment? Will he recognise that there will be considerable concern among steel workers throughout the industry if there is any attempt to dilute the contributory pension scheme, which has been established over a number of years?
    Mr. Nicholls: I can appreciate the concern which the hon. Gentleman's constituents will feel when privatisation comes along, because although there are great opportunities, it represents a new departure, and clearly his constituents will want to be assured that there will be no dilution in the way that he suggests.
    Perhaps I could make the point to the hon. Gentleman that there has been a transformation in the United Kingdom steel industry in recent years, and that is something that must bode well for his constituents. It is also worth emphasising that BSC gave an assurance as long ago as last December that, subject to market conditions, there would continue to be a commercial requirement for steel making and continuous casting capacity at the five integrated BSC plants for at least the next seven years. While I do not in any sense underplay the feelings of the hon. Gentleman's constituents, I hope that when they look at the industry in total they will be substantially reassured.
    Mr. Sackville: Does my hon. Friend agree that many more jobs among steel-using industries stand to be lost by the operation of cartels among European steel producers and political interference than could possibly be saved in the steel industry by any such practices?
    Mr. Nicholls: While that may not be directly a matter for me, I can understand the concern that my hon. Friend expresses in that question. Sometimes there is a feeling, certainly on this side of the House, that the high standards that we impose on ourselves are not always entirely matched by the performance of others.

    Employment Trends
    Mr. Leigh: To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will make a statement on employment trends for the remainder of 1988.
    Mr. Cope: Following the long-established practice of previous Governments, we do not make forecasts of future employment levels. However, there is every prospect of a continuing rise in employment during 1988.
    Mr. Leigh: With unemployment having fallen for 19 successive months, which now represents the greater threat to future job growth: the Neanderthal mentality of Dundee trade-union man, or the greedy mentality of Dagenham trade-union man?
    Mr. Cope: It is difficult to place these factors in order of importance, but both are certainly important. The events in Dundee have without doubt damaged prospects. Wage increases are also well ahead of inflation, and this can damage competitiveness, and jobs and job creation as well. I hope that wage negotiators will have regard to that.
    Mr. James Lamond: Looking back at the hundreds of thousands of manufacturing jobs that the Government have destroyed up and down the country, including in Dundee, it ill becomes them to criticise the trade union movement for refusing to accept the Government's
    878
    suggestion that it should go on bended knee to the United States, like a Third world country, asking the Americans to come here to pay slave labour wages and destroy the trade union movement. If the Minister expects that from the British trade union movement, he has a fight on his hands.
    Mr. Cope: There is no point in our approaching Ford until the unions concerned have made their position clear.
    Mr. Ashby: Has my hon. Friend considered that employment trends in 1988 and thereafter could improve considerably if great care were taken with future legislation to ensure that it does not inhibit manufacturing industry or the future of new manufacturing industries? What is done in the Department about representations to other Departments to see that their legislation does not inhibit industry?
    Mr. Cope: The primary responsibility for this rests with the DTI and the deregulation unit, which examines all proposals. We do our bit, too, particularly for small businesses.
    Mr. Strang: Does the Minister accept that, in spite of the recent fall in unemployment, the current number of unemployed claimants is between two and three times what it was when the Conservative party came to power? Does he recognise that, without a major Government initiative in this area, there is no hope of getting unemployment down by the next general election even to its level in 1979?
    Mr. Cope: The hon. Gentleman should also recognise that employment has been up in every quarter for four and a half years.
    Mr. Favell: Have not recent events shown that traditional trade unions are still interested in traditional working practices, rather than in creating the sort of climate that creates employment?
    Mr. Cope: Yes, Sir.

    Manufacturing Industry
    Mr. Skinner: To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many jobs have been lost in manufacturing industry since June 1979; and if he will list the sectors of manufacturing industry which have incurred the highest number of job losses.
    Mr. Nicholls: Between June 1979 and January 1988 the number of employees in employment in manufacturing industry in Great Britain is estimated to have fallen by 2,077,000. Over this period, the largest falls occurred in the mechanical engineering, motor vehicle, metal manufacturing, electrical engineering and metal goods industries. However, recent figures suggest that the trend in manufacturing employment may now be levelling out.
    Mr. Skinner: Is the Minister aware that that list of more than 2 million casualties, of which Ron Todd has not been responsible for a single one—[HON. MEMBERS : "Oh!"]—shows the hypocrisy of the Government when they talk about the loss of jobs in the last eight years? The Prime Minister has caused more devastation in manufacturing industry than Adolf Hitler caused between 1939 and 1945. It is no wonder that West Germany and Japan are laughing at Britain where they have a $120 billion surplus

    879
    on their trade and are walking away to the top of the industrial trade league, while we are losing jobs all around Great Britain.
    Mr. Nicholls: The immoderate, ignorant and intemperate nature of that question shows that if we ever have a "wally of the week" award, the hon. Gentleman will be in a class of his own.
    Mr. William Powell: Is my hon. Friend aware that my constituents do not well receive criticisms from Opposition Members about job losses when they recall that the last Labour Government closed the steelworks in Corby? However, my constituents welcome the enormous assistance that the Government have given them, which has enabled Corby to make such a striking recovery from that disaster.
    Mr. Nicholls: I am sure that my hon. Friend is right. He might want to compliment the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) on having had the courage to address the issue of Dundee, even if he has not managed to reach the inevitable conclusions about it.

    YTS
    Mr. Steinberg: To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what proportion of YTS leavers become unemployed; and how many have become long-term unemployed.
    Mr. Cope: The Manpower Services Commission carries out regular follow-up surveys of all YTS leavers. These surveys show that, of those who left YTS schemes between April 1986 and September 1987, 22 per cent. were unemployed when surveyed. These surveys do not provide data on the duration of unemployment.
    Mr. Steinberg: Is the Minister aware that in the northern region 31 per cent. are destined for the dole and those who do get work get jobs without proper training? Does the Minister agree that every youngster needs proper, quality training so that he can get a proper, quality job?
    Mr. Cope: Yes. That is why we have the drive for equality in YTS and why we insist, for example, on approved training organisation status for all providers as from this week.

  PRIME MINISTER

    Engagements
    Mr. George Howarth: To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 29 March.
    The Prime Minister: This morning I had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others, including the Prime Minister of Fiji and the Mayor of Shanghai. In addition to my duties in the House, I shall be having further meetings later today.
    Mr. Howarth: In view of the widespread concern about the poll tax in the country, and indeed on her own Back Benches, will the Prime Minister give serious consideration to withdrawing this deeply offensive legislation?
    The Prime Minister: No. The community charge is a much fairer way of local people paying towards local
    880
    authority expenditure than the present rating system. The community charge in England will meet only one quarter of local authority expenditure. About half is met by the taxpayer and a quarter by industry. In Scotland the community charge meets only one seventh of local authority expenditure.
    Mr. Arbuthnot: Does my right hon. Friend welcome the decision yesterday by the Royal College of Nurses to reaffirm its no-strike policy, on the basis that strikes damage patients? Does she agree that that contrasts starkly with the behaviour of some teachers in London. When they go on strike it damages only their own pupils.
    The Prime Minister: Yes, It was a most encouraging result. Of course, that was the reason why the Royal College of Nurses was given a pay review body. The Royal College has never gone on strike, and I am glad that our faith in it was abundantly rewarded by the view that it took.
    Mr. Steel: Will the Prime Minister make clear her personal opposition, and that of the Government, to British rugby players organising a visit to South Africa?
    The Prime Minister: As the right hon. Gentleman is aware, we stand by the Gleneagles agreement, under which we attempt to discourage teams from going to South Africa. I understand that the English Rugby Union is trying to dissuade people from going to South Africa. I am not aware that either the Scots or the Welsh have declared their view.
    Sir Peter Emery: Will my right hon. Friend make it completely clear, in order to scotch rumour and media hype, that there is absolutely no difference of policy between herself and the Chancellor of the Exchequer?
    The Prime Minister: My hon. Friend is correct. Both the Chancellor and I put downward pressure on inflation as the topmost priority. Both the Chancellor and I think that exchange rate stability can be very useful for industry.
    Mr. Ron Davies: To ask the Prime Minister is she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 29 March.
    The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Davies: In her endeavour to re-establish the bonds of family life, has the Prime Minister ever given any consideration to the value of a wife? Is she aware that the Forestry Commission is trying to double the rent of the tied cottages of its New Forest keepers and is offering in compensation £2 per week for each keeper's wife? Given that the Forestry Commission pays the same keepers 45p a week for a ferret and £2·30 a week for a dog, should she not intervene?
    The Prime Minister: I think the hon. Gentleman will be aware that the Budget set out considerably to help wives by the changes made by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer about the taxation of wives. We on this side value them extremely highly.
    Mr. Carrington: Will my right hon. Friend find time in her busy day to read the scandalous letter sent by the Hammersmith branch of NALGO to Sinn Fein accusing the Government of state terrorism in Northern Ireland? Will she urge the national executive of NALGO to take disciplinary action against those members involved, and will she affirm—
    Mr. Speaker: Order. There must be Government responsibility.
    Mr. Carrington: Will my right hon. Friend join me in condemning the actions of that NALGO branch?
    Mr. Speaker: Order. There must be Government responsibility.
    Mr. Kinnock: Is the Prime Minister aware that Citizens Advice Bureaux case studies on the effects of her social security cuts show that a single pensioner home owner will lose £2 a week, a pensioner couple claiming income support can lose up to £18 a week, a pensioner on dialysis will lose £17 a week, and a doubly incontinent person claiming attendance allowance will lose £14 a week? Is that the way to treat sick and elderly people in the Britain of 1988?
    The Prime Minister: I am not aware of which press release by the Citizens Advice Bureaux the right hon. Gentleman is talking about. Is it one that has come out recently? There was a recent Citizens Advice Bureaux press release that was based on a belief that there was a difference between the time when supplementary benefit was changed to income support and the increase in pension benefit came into effect. In fact, that is not so.
    Mr. Kinnock: Why will the Prime Minister not answer any specific question on the social security changes? Why is she dodging around talking about press releases when she knows very well that what I refer to are specific case studies of real people who, despite their huge needs, will lose £14, £17 and £18 a week as a consequence of next week's changes? Is she ashamed of those changes?
    The Prime Minister: I assumed that the right hon. Gentleman was talking about a Citizens Advice Bureaux press release which came out yesterday and which was based on a misunderstanding. Among other things, may I tell the right hon. Gentleman that the overwhelming majority of people will benefit, gain, from the improved social security benefits that will come out on 11 April? Some people on housing benefit will not gain because of the different arrangements about capital. It is absolutely futile for him to suggest that the Conservative party and the Government do not look after the needs of people on social security. It is absolutely futile, because not only are we already spending £44 billion on social security, but there is to be an increase of £2 billion next year. His questions are utterly futile and he cannot refute the facts.
    Mr. Kinnock: That is all very well, but many sick and elderly people still stand to lose £14, £17 and £18 a week. Let me ask the Prime Minister the question again. Does she think that that is the way to treat anyone in this country?
    The Prime Minister: The overwhelming majority of people will gain—and were designed to gain—from the increases in pensions, in disablement benefit and in sickness benefit. A few people will not gain. Apart from those on housing benefit, those who do not gain will be protected during the transition, in that their cash values will be protected. The overwhelming majority of us on this side of the House think it right that people who have capital of £6,000 should not be eligible for housing benefit, particularly as it is often paid by those who have none.
    Mr. Kinnock rose—[Interruption.]
    Mr. Speaker: Order. Mr. Kinnock.
    Mr. Kinnock: The Prime Minister—[Interruption.]
    Mr. Speaker: Order. I called the Leader of the Opposition.
    Mr. Kinnock: The Prime Minister does not even understand her own policies. According to her Government's figures, 60 per cent. of claimants will lose because of the structural changes. There are no transitional arrangements for new payments. Will she now tell the people of Britain whether she thinks that people on dialysis, old-age pensioners and single home owners should be losing money at all? She can talk about gainers. Should anybody on those incomes be losing anything at all?
    The Prime Minister: An extra £2 billion is to be spent on social security next year, giving a total of £46 billion. The right hon. Gentleman referred to dialysis. Far more people are now receiving dialysis than ever were in his time.
    When the right hon. Gentleman said that 60 per cent. of people were losing, I think that he was referring to the Citizens Advice Bureaux press release this morning, which was seriously misleading, because it got the date of the benefits uprating wrong. Almost everyone in this country is doing far better than he or she was in 1979.
    Mr. Robert B. Jones: Is my right hon. Friend aware that in north-west Hertfordshire district health authority there have been two health cuts: a cut of 47 per cent. in the waiting lists under this Government, and a cut of £100,000 available for patient care as a result of a 17 per cent. rate increase applied by the Socialist-controlled Hertfordshire county council?
    The Prime Minister: Yes, the overwhelming majority of people who are treated under the National Health Service have very good cause to be grateful, and are very grateful. Cuts in the Health Service came under the Labour party when it was in power.
    Mr. Archer: To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 29 March.
    The Prime Minister: I refer the right hon. and learned Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Archer: When the right hon. Lady finds time to read the report by the National Association of Citizens Advice Bureaux, will she also read the report by the Policy Studies Institute, and by Oxford university, showing the impact of the Government's social security cuts on the sick, the disabled, the elderly and the unemployed? How will she then deal with the situation? Will she ask her right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer to provide funding for the sick, the disabled, the elderly and the unemployed, or will she instruct the appropriate Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Security to arrange for them to take out second mortgages, or will she withdraw funding from the Citizens Advice Bureaux, the Policy Studies Institute and Oxford university?
    The Prime Minister: Or will, perhaps, the right hon. and learned Gentleman and his party move a motion to cancel all the increases, or do they in their heart of hearts believe that they are far better with the overwhelming majority? The right hon. and learned Gentleman knows that they are far better. Otherwise, I challenge him to move a motion to cancel the increases.
    Mr. David Shaw: To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 29 March.
    The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Shaw: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the Monopolies and Mergers Commission investigation into trade union restrictive practices is most welcome? Furthermore, does she agree that those practices, whether at Dundee or elsewhere, disadvantage British industry, increase costs, damage the interests of the British consumer and are damaging to the country's interests overall?
    The Prime Minister: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. All restrictive practices stifle competition and put up costs. We should do everything that we can to rid ourselves of them. That is why this matter has been referred to the Monopolies and Mergers Commission.
    Mr. Frank Cook: To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 29 March.
    The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Cook: Does the Prime Minister recall her carefully considered reply on 18 July 1985 to her hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Worcestershire (Mr. Forth), when she justified the 30 per cent. plus increase in top people's salaries by the need to provide rewards regarded by the public as fair but not generous in relation to the responsibilities carried? Bearing in mind last week's statement by the hon. Member for Kingston upon Thames (Mr. Lamont) that the reduction in the standard rate of tax is irreversible, will the right hon. Lady tell the House whether she intends to bear such adjustments in mind when she next reviews top salaries?
    The Prime Minister: The report from the Top Salaries Review Body will come in with those of other review bodies, and we shall make our decisions on them, as we have done previously. I have not noticed that hon. Members have been anxious to take lower salaries.

Rover Group (Privatisation)
3.31 pm
The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster and Minister of Trade and Industry (Mr. Kenneth Clarke): With permission, Mr. Speaker, I should like to make a statement.
I informed the House on 1 March that British Aerospace had declared a serious interest in acquiring the Government shareholding in Rover Group and that negotiations were being put in hand. British Aerospace asked that the negotiations should be on an exclusive basis. We agreed to this, provided that the further studies that it wished to carry out on Rover Group, and the negotiations between British Aerospace and the Government, were concluded by the end of April.
I promised to return and report the outcome of these discussions to the House at the earliest opportunity. I can do this today because British Aerospace has completed its investigations satisfactorily and earlier than anticipated. The negotiations have therefore been concluded and agreement reached. The rules of the stock exchange require in these circumstances that an announcement is made without delay. Today we have entered into a conditional contract with British Aerospace for the sale of the Government's shareholding in Rover Group.
Before entering into the contract with British Aerospace, we considered a number of confidential expressions of interest, but none amounted to a specific offer.
The board of Rover Group believes that this is the best possible outcome for the group. British Aerospace is strongly committed to the further development and growth of Rover Group, working with the existing Rover Group management who have made so much progress in improving the performance of the businesses. Honda told us that it welcomed the continuity of Rover Group's management team which would be assured by British Aerospace's ownership of the company. I therefore hope that the important operational partnership between Rover Group and Honda can continue to develop satisfactorily.
Without constraining British Aerospace's day-to-day management of the business, we have agreed important conditions on the agreement. British Aerospace has undertaken not to relinquish control of Austin Rover and Land Rover within five years. This undertaking is supported by legal arrangements designed to ensure that it is not to its financial advantage to do so.
I shall now turn to the main financial terms of the agreement. During negotiations it has been impressed on us by the board of British Aerospace that Rover Group operates in a highly competitive industry and that, notwithstanding the recovery in 1987, its current and prospective levels of profitability are insufficient to meet the interest burden on debt built up through many years of accumulated losses. The Government have been equally concerned that the merger of these two major British manufacturing groups should move forward only on a firm financial footing.
Since 1975, when the Government became the majority owner of British Leyland, the banks have been content to advance large sums on the strength of the Government's involvement. In order that the company is in a fit state to return to the private sector it is appropriate that we should deal with this accumulated indebtedness, which no
886
company without similar backing could be expected to maintain. Of course, we would have had to undertake this exercise whatever route had been adopted for Rover Group's privatisation. The Government have therefore agreed that the Government will make a cash injection of £800 million into Rover Group for this purpose.
Following agreement on these steps to strengthen the Rover Group balance sheet, we have been able to conclude an agreement to sell the Government shareholding in Rover Group for £150 million.
We have also agreed with British Aerospace and Rover Group arrangements whereby £1·1 billion of Rover Group's trading tax losses will effectively be eliminated, leaving only £500 — [interruption.] — £500 million of these losses will remain to be claimed against Rover Group profits in the future. British Aerospace has also agreed that other currently available tax reliefs within Rover Group will be applicable only within that group.
I turn now to the elimination of the Varley-Marshall-Joseph parliamentary assurances relating to Rover Group's bank debts, trade creditors and other obligations. These currently total approximately £1·6 billion. While Rover Group has been in public ownership, the Government have given assurances that the obligations of the group will be met. No new obligations incurred by the Rover Group after the date of completion will benefit from the assurances. Obligations incurred between now and the completion date will cease to benefit from the assurances on completion.
The negotiations with British Aerospace have concerned only the Government's shareholding in Rover Group. British Aerospace has said that, following completion of its acquisition of the Government's shares, it will make separate proposals to Rover Group's minority shareholders in due course to acquire their shares. British Aerospace has made it clear that these proposals will be fair and reasonable and will be made after consultation with the Rover Group board and its advisers.
The agreement is, of course, subject to the approval of the British Aerospace shareholders and the completion of the normal European Community procedures. We also expect to receive the advice of the Director General of Fair Trading.
I should like to explain what progress there has been on the European Community implications of these plans. On 14 March we notified the European Commission that we proposed to deal with the necessary restructuring of Rover Group's finances. My right hon. and noble Friend the Secretary of State met Commissioner Sutherland on 23 March to explain the Government's objectives and proposals. He had a further meeting with Commissioner Sutherland yesterday. The Commission met this morning and decided to open the formal state aid procedure. I am confident that the Commission will expedite its investigation.
The agreement brings to a successful conclusion the privatisation initiative that began in earnest with the flotation of Jaguar in 1984. Since he took office in May 1986, Mr. Graham Day has presided over a remarkable period of change. The House should pay tribute to his achievements. He returned the group to an operating profit last year. He has already returned 18 Rover Group businesses to private ownership. These include the trucks and bus activities, Unipart, Istel, and Jaguar Rover Australia, which are all trading profitably under their new

887
owners. The final step that I have announced today will fulfil our commitment to privatise Rover Group within the life of this Parliament.
In the hands of British Aerospace, Rover Group would have the best available chance of developing its independent role in the vehicle industry. We cannot afford to underestimate the contribution to the economy of the largest United Kingdom passenger vehicle producer with a turnover of £3 billion, exports of £1 billion, direct employment of 43,000, and indirect employment of two or three times that number in the component supply sector, as well as over 50,000 jobs in Rover Group's distribution networks. This will strengthen Rover Group's ability to compete at home and abroad and thus benefit all those who work with and for it, as well as the economy as a whole. I commend the agreement to the House.
Mr. Bryan Gould: Has not the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster got his seasons confused? Is not Christmas, rather than Easter, normally the season for giving? Is not this astonishing statement another sad instalment in the sorry saga of the Government's long attempts to write off Britain's largest indigenous car manufacturer at any price? Is it not an act of political irresponsibility and industrial sabotage, totally lacking in industrial logic or commercial sense?
Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman confirm that he is paying British Aerospace £650 million—enough to raise child benefit by £1 per week—to persuade it to walk away with net assets worth £770 million? How can that crazy logic be justified, even in terms of this Government's ridiculous economic calculations?
Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman also confirm that, with his characteristic lack of regard for the taxpayer's interests, he is writing off £1·1 billion of debt that is owed to the taxpayer, allowing Rover and its future owners to retain enough tax losses to ensure that they pay no tax whatsoever on any profits that they may make in the next few years?
Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman comment on reports that tomorrow British Aerospace will reveal that it is short of cash itself? Is it not clear that BAe views Rover as a sort of cash cow to help it over a liquidity problem, and that instead of putting money into volume car manufacture it intends to take it out—hardly the right basis for an industry that desperately needs a long-term commitment to investment if it is to survive? What assurances can he offer the House that the investment that is desperately needed will be made by a cash-starved BAe?
Does the right hon. and learned Gentleman recognise that Rover's collaboration with Honda is crucial to its future? Does not the cancellation of the Legend project make it clear that Honda is already disenchanted, and will it not become even more disenchanted as the greedy logic and confetti money basis of the deal becomes increasingly clear?
What assurances does the right hon. and learned Gentleman have that the EEC will complete its investigations in time or in favour of this ridiculous deal?
Finally, what assurances can the right hon. and learned Gentleman give the House about the future of this vital British industry? Is not his statement a further sign that all that the Government wish to do is to wash their hands of this important industry as quickly as possible, with no regard whatsoever for the future of the work force or for Britain's industrial future in this vital area?
Mr. Clarke: I did not follow all the hon. Gentleman's financial logic—if that is a fair description of the way in which he put his questions. If he is acquiring a somewhat belated concern for the interests of the taxpayer, he might reflect on the experience of the taxpayer since 1976, when the company was taken into public ownership, because during that time the taxpayer has had to pay £2·9 billion to cover the losses that have been made by the company. If the hon. Gentleman tries to convert that into other things that might have been bought by the taxpayer with that money, he will find that he reaches some spectacular conclusions.
When the hon. Gentleman comes to analyse the bargain that the Government have struck with British Aerospace, he should reflect, first, on the full terms, which I gave the House in some detail. At the moment the taxpayer is facing an obligation under the Varley-Marshall-Joseph assurances that amounts in total to £1·6 billion. On the basis that I have given, that prospective liability will be extinguished in the next few months and no now liabilities will accrue under that head.
When it comes to extinguishing the tax losses that have been accrued by Rover in the past, like several of his hon. Friends when I read it out, the hon. Gentleman totally misunderstood the implication of that. Extinguishing those tax losses means that they cannot be offset against future profits. It is to the benefit of the Exchequer to extinguish over £1 billion of accumulated tax losses, and it is worth about £400 million prospectively to the British economy. The remaining £500 million of tax losses available to British Aerospace is of use to it only against future Rover Group profits, and Rover Group has been earning those on its trading profit and loss account during the past 12 months.
The hon. Gentleman says that British Aerospace regards Rover as a "cash cow". I assume that that is his description of British Aerospace's commercial judgment that the company is a good long-term investment from which it expects to earn profits in the future. I trust that it will do so if its management is successful in developing the business.
The hon. Gentleman has no reason whatsoever for casting doubt on Honda's reaction to the deal. We have sounded out Honda, which is content that its important commitment to and involvement with the Rover Group should continue. The hon. Gentleman is irresponsible in casting doubt on that.
I advise the hon. Gentleman to go away and study the deal. It is an extremely good day for the taxpayer that we can see the end of the Varley-Marshall-Joseph assurances and extinguish all those tax losses. It is a very good day for the Rover Group and all who work in it that a company such as British Aerospace has judged that it wishes to bid for that company and that it sees a long-term future for the business.
When the hon. Gentleman talks about sabotage, he has a brass neck. During the past fortnight the activities of the trade union and labour movement have sabotaged 1,000 new vehicle jobs in Dundee. When he is faced with a deal such as this, a little modesty on his part would be rather suitable.
Mr. Kenneth Warren: I congratulate my right hon. and learned Friend on the deal. Is he not doing what BAe and Rover should do? Should they not get together in the same way as General Motors,

889
Ford and Boeing in the United States, to strengthen the production and manufacturing technology available to a combined group to compete in the world today?
I am delighted that BAe is acquiring the management talents of Graham Day, but may I have an assurance that no pay-off is involved relating to BAe's problems in financing the Airbus?
Mr. Clarke: The judgment made by the management of BAe is in line with that made by other successful companies in other parts of the world. There is nothing unique about an arrangement between an aerospace company and a vehicle manufacturer.
I can assure my hon. Friend that there is no hidden deal behind the full details that I have given the House today. In particular, our arrangements with BAe on its aerospace business remain as they have been: a close pattern of partnership.
Mr. Robert Sheldon: Is it not unfortunate that the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry is not a Member of the House of Commons, which has pre-eminently the right to discuss economic and financial matters, and to which the Secretary of State might then be personally accountable?
Is the right hon. and learned Gentleman aware that the Public Accounts Committee may well wish to examine the justification for the sale, and will certainly want to distinguish between the Government's right to produce policy objectives and the right of the taxpayer to be sure that his money is protected?
Mr. Clarke: This is a collective decision by the Cabinet and the Government. The Government are, of course, answerable to the House for their decisions, and are certainly accountable to the House for the way in which they look after public money and the taxpayer's interests. They have absolutely nothing to fear from an examination of the arrangements by the Public Accounts Committee. If the Committee wishes to take evidence, we shall welcome the opportunity to explain further.
Mr. Hal Miller: May I turn from the politics of the Opposition to the jobs of my constituents, and the constituents of many other west midlands Members?
I welcome the early timing of the announcement to relieve uncertainty. May I ask, however, whether out of the "dowry", if I may describe it thus—in view of the expression
"committed to the further development of Rover Group"—
any commitment was sought for the replacement of the Metro car, which accounts for two fifths of the Rover Group's sales and is the only Rover car in the country that is in the top-selling bracket?
Mr. Clarke: I can assure my hon. Friend that BAe has told us that it looks on its acquisition of the Rover Group as a long-term investment and is committed to the maintenance and development in the longer term of the group's present business. It would clearly be wrong for the Government to impose constraints and commitments on the management of the group when it must make its own decisions on capital investment and on its future.
I am in no doubt that BAe has acquired the business to develop and maintain it. Obviously, it will address itself
890
—together with the Rover Group management which is joining it—to the future well-being of the business and the shape of the product range.
Mr. Matthew Taylor: Does the Minister agree with his noble Friend Lord Bruce-Gardyne, who has described these as "golden giveaway terms"? Does he agree that the Government are paying BAe to take the Rover Group off their hands just as it is becoming profitable, and will he at least guarantee that the Government's golden share of 15 per cent. in BAe will be maintained?
It is now clear to the electorate that, whatever else may be the case, investments in the economy are not safe in the Government's hands.
Mr. Clarke: If those comments by Lord Bruce-Gardyne are accurately quoted, I flatly disagree with them. I advise the hon. Member for Truro (Mr. Taylor) and my noble Friend to study the terms more closely and to consider the full extent of the contingency liabilities and obligations that the taxpayer now faces in owning the Rover Group. As a consequence of the deal, we will extinguish all those assurances and all the excessive tax losses, and will return the company—on a sound basis—to the private sector, where it has a better prospect of thriving in the future. The arrangements for the golden share in British Aerospace remain unaffected and stay as they have always been announced.
Mr. Dave Nellist: I thank Leslie Crowther for that statement, which is the industrial equivalent of the 5p cemetery. What will the Minister say to give any confidence to the workers of Rover, given that BAe has just announced its intention to reduce its costs by one fifth in the next two years and by a further one third in the following two years? Since Rover and BAe are both heavily dependent on export markets, and are therefore vulnerable to the falling dollar, what guarantees is the Minister giving today for the jobs of Rover workers against the background of that economic cutback? With an increased tendency towards sweating in Ford, Jaguar and Land Rover, is it not a fact that car workers' trade unions will have to strenghthen their organisations to fight the battles ahead?
Mr. Clarke: British Aerospace is in a highly competitive market in both its civil aviation and military business. Therefore, I have no doubt that all those with the interests of BAe at heart will welcome the commitment of the management to bring down, and keep down, its costs and remain competitive, which I am sure it will endeavour to do. The guarantee of jobs that the hon. Gentleman seeks cannot be given, except in the context of looking for jobs to be assured by continued success in the market place. It does not matter who owns the company, whether it is a public sector or private sector owner, of whatever sort. The well-being of the company and those who work for it depends on its continued success in the market place and the continued improvement in performance that we have seen under Graham Day's leadership in the past 12 months.
The idea that the organisations representing car workers need to be strengthened does not instantly come to my mind. What is needed is for the organisations representing those workers to come up to date with the 1980s and realise that the attitudes that they have

891
displayed recently in the face of an attractive Ford investment proposal in Scotland will set the car industry in this country moving backwards, rather than forwards.
Mr. Michael Grylls: Will my right hon. and learned Friend accept that this is a welcome end to a disastrous story that was started by the right hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn) when he put together two companies that should never have been together? Is it not a vindication of the Government's policy of a step-by-step privatisation of the original British Leyland group, culminating in this arrangement with BAe? In fact, the paying of £800 million is a good deal when it gets the taxpayer off the hook for a £1·6 billion guarantee. The taxpayer should be rejoicing, and we should be wishing the firm every success in the future.
Mr. Clarke: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his comments. It is a remarkably successful outcome to the Government's attempts to prepare the Rover Group as a whole for a return to the private sector. I agree that we should look back with relief to the ending of a period during which almost £3 billion has been expended by the taxpayer on covering losses in that group, when we all know how £3 billion of taxpayers' money could have been put to other purposes had the group not been performing as it was.
On the matter of the £800 million, the fact is that the bank indebtedness of the company was allowed to accrue only because the Government were standing behind it. No other company trading in the same way as the Rover Group could have built up that bank indebtedness. It is simply not reasonable to expect it to be taken on by any new purchaser. That would have applied however we had eventually moved to privatisation of the group. Therefore, we have extinguished that bank indebtedness but, at the same time, as my hon. Friend the Member for Surrey, North-West (Mr. Grylls) points out, we are getting rid of all sorts of other liabilities for the taxpayer which cannot be brought to an end except by successful privatisation of the sort that I have announced.
Mr. Michael Heseltine: Will my right hon. and learned Friend recognise that BAe buying Rover is a remarkable achievement for a privatised company —British Aerospace—encouraging first Royal Ordnance plc and now Rover into the private sector? Will he recognise that in writing out a contingent liability we are saving potential damage to the taxpayer? In recognising that the fortunes of the company are bound to be significantly improved in the private sector, we are now certain that the company can continue to expand as it has done so dramatically since it was first privatised.
Mr. Clarke: I agree with my right hon. Friend. As a result of the changed industrial climate and the Government's economic policies, we have seen a powerful manufacturing group emerge composed of what were fairly unsuccessful nationalised industries only a few years ago. Every responsible hon. Member must wish that this great group will go on to be a very powerful manufacturing force in the British economy.
Mr. Terry Davis: As BAe needed Government help to fund its contribution to Airbus development a year ago, how will BAe find the money to finance new model development at Rover Group in future? What assurances, estimates or forecasts has BAe
892
given the Government about jobs at Rover Group in view of the tremendous job losses that have taken place at BAe since it was privatised?
Mr. Clarke: I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman is, by implication, criticising the provision of launch aid for the Airbus project. Launch aid is in no way a subsidy. It is aid to develop a product which has a particularly long lead time before it can produce any returns. It also enables BAe to engage in the Airbus project, which is still at a fairly early stage of development in the civil aviation market. However, launch aid is not a subsidy, because there are agreements attached to launch aid whereby it will be repaid on terms that will show a return agreed in advance with the Government. There is no way in which a comparison can be drawn between that aspect of financing civil aviation and the capital needs of a vehicle business. Of course, the company will have to look to its resources and ability to raise money on the assets to finance its future model development. That is inevitable in that business as in any other.
The loss of jobs in BAe is the inevitable result of the competitive pressures on the company. However, the security of jobs in any business depends in the end on the ability of the business to remain competitive and its ability to produce products that it can sell successfully in the market place. No nationalisation process can get round that.
Mr. Jonathan Sayeed: Within the agreement between BAe and the Rover Group, has there been an agreement on management contracts for the most able members of the Rover board? Was any other organisation prepared to put up more money than BAe for the Rover Group?
Mr. Clarke: I cannot, of course, give details of the contracts of individual managers with the new company, any more than I could give details off the cuff of existing management contracts. I know that BAe regarded the existing management of Rover Group as one of its assets, and it intends to continue to work with the existing management. This will cause the minimum of disruption to those engaged in the company. We did not receive any offers from anyone else. We received some expressions of interest, but they have proceeded no further. We have reached a satisfactory conclusion to our negotiations with BAe.
Mr. Andrew Smith: This appears to be a very generous settlement for BAe. It is getting Rover Group on the cheap. In return for this generosity, what specific assurances has the right hon. and learned Gentleman secured for the future investment in model development and the continuity of Rover's presence in the volume market? What form will the legal agreement over relinquishment take? What has happened to the £80 million from the pension fund which the workers contributed to the Rover Group balance sheet? In view of the importance of this matter for jobs and industrial success in my constituency and elsewhere, should we not have a full debate on this issue as soon as possible?
Mr. Clarke: I have not the first idea what price the Opposition think they would have negotiated in such a deal had they embarked upon one. I suspect from some questions from other Opposition Members that they have

893
not yet fully absorbed the details of the very successful bargain that has been struck between BAe and the Government in reaching this arrangement.
We have not imposed requirements on the purchasers of the company about model development or the volume that it should seek in the market, because we believe that it is contrary to the interests of the company and everyone working in it to attempt to put those political constraints on the management's ability to manage the business in the best interests of the company and those who depend on it.
The pension fund in the Rover Group accumulated a surplus. Together with a large number of other companies, the group is taking a tax holiday on contributions with regard to the company and increasing the benefits to the members. The employers and the employees have both contributed to the pension fund. I understand that both are now benefiting from the fund's good performance and there have been improvements to the benefits, for which credit should be given.
As I told the right hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Mr. Sheldon) a moment ago, the Government would welcome the opportunity to explain the position to the Public Accounts Committee, if the Committee regarded the matter as important enough to look at, and we would certainly welcome a debate on the Floor of the House. I am sure that my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House is ready to arrange a day for such a debate, through the usual channels.
Mr. Roger King: I welcome the conclusion of the negotiations. My right hon. and learned Friend will be aware that Austin Rover is the tip of a manufacturing iceberg, because thousands of component suppliers throughout the midlands, and indeed the country, feed into the two main assembly plants. They have geared production for an output of 500,000 cars per year. Is my right hon. and learned Friend satisfied that the new management of BAe has the financial backing and commitment to ensure that such volume manufacturing will continue and, with it, the prosperity of large chunks of our manufacturing businesses?
Mr. Clarke: Throughout the negotiations, we have been conscious of the interests, to which my hon. Friend rightly draws attention, of the component suppliers and the distributors, and the tens of thousands of jobs that are indirectly dependent upon the Rover Group's business. I think that they will welcome the outcome of these negotiations because we have achieved the conclusion of the privatisation process without disrupting business or creating any excessive uncertainties. My hon. Friend will remember that when various other bidders were rumoured to be in the field two years ago and there was uncertainty, the company lost £250 million-worth of sales, 2 per cent. of its market share, which it has never recovered, and there was considerable alarm among dealers and component manufacturers. This has been a smooth process which has had their interests very much in mind.
The continued volume of production and success of the business depends entirely on the success of the management and work force in maintaining and improving their position in the market place. We believe that the privatised company will be much better placed to compete in that market place than it would be if it continued in public sector ownership.
Mr. Gerald Bermingham: Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman kindly answer the question asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Hodge Hill (Mr. Davis) about whether he or the Government have received any estimates or forecasts of the effect of this deal on the employees of the Rover Group, and perhaps its suppliers? Does he agree that, just as BAe must put the matter to ballot of its shareholders, it is only fair that the Government should put it to a ballot of their shareholders—the electorate?
Mr. Clarke: I made it clear a moment ago that we have not entered into detailed commitments about the future shape of the business, except that BAe has made it clear that it has bought the company as a long-term investment and is committed to its continued development. The total number of employees engaged in any particular occupation will depend, as I keep saying, upon its success in the market place. I am in no position to make forecasts about that for anything more than the immediate future. The acquisition in itself has no effect upon employment prospects in the group, except to give a little added security to those who work there because of the potential benefit of the company being free to trade as a private sector company.
I have no intention of embarking on a referendum on this subject. The judgment of the people might be a little more reliable than that of the Labour party, but I fear that the period of uncertainty during the referendum would do a huge amount of damage to the business and all those dependent on it.
Sir Giles Shaw: Will my right hon. and learned Friend accept my congratulations on the speed as well as the success of the negotiations that he has led? Perhaps those congratulations should also go to that hard-working team of officials who serve him so well. Will he lift his uncharacteristic shyness on two aspects? Will he comment further on, first, the Honda association and the joint projects undergone by Honda — not just the management commitment, but the project list — and, secondly, on the competitive business within the European Community? My right hon. and learned Friend referred to the opening of the European processes. Does he have some confidence that they will be closed favourably at the appropriate time?
Mr. Clarke: I am grateful to my hon. Friend, who had responsibility for this business at more difficult times. As he was so successful in assisting the company through those difficult times, I am sure that he is as delighted as I am to see the project come to such a successful conclusion with this privatisation
We have ascertained that Honda is perfectly content for the acquisition to go ahead. Indeed, it appears to welcome it. It would have been somewhat worried if a car manufacturer had shown an interest in the group, but we have had no offer from any car manufacturer. Honda has shown its willingness to continue to collaborate model by model with the Rover Group, which has been important to the group in the past.
Processes within the EC will inevitably take a little time. All the other member states have to be given the opportunity to comment on the state aid element of what we propose. We have the Commission's agreement to expedite that process as quickly as possible, and I hope that it will be concluded within the next few months.
Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours: Is it not true that, while BAe is paying £150 million, the tax loss concession is worth £175 million to it, so it ends up with £25 million in hand? Has not the right hon. and learned Gentleman handed an inquiry to the Public Accounts Committee on a plate? Is it not true that the only people who who have benefited from this matter in the past few days, and indeed, today, are those who are speculating in BAe's shares who have pre-empted this decision and who will inevitably make a substantial gain?
Mr. Clarke: The hon. Gentleman is a member of the Public Accounts Committee and no doubt he will have an opportunity to put forward those arguments again. I remind him that the taxpayer is guaranteeing £1·6 billion-worth of bank and trade creditors who have been dealing with the company on that basis until now. Those liabilities will be extinguished over the next few months. For the moment, because of its losses, the group has accumulated £1·6 billion-worth of tax losses, which could be offset against any future profitability of the group, at great expense to the Exchequer. We have extinguished over £1 billion-worth of those tax losses, and that in itself saves the Exchequer a contingent liability of about £400 million. When the hon. Gentleman looks at the deal more closely he will see that it is a bargain for the taxpayer, that proper accountability can be mantained for the public interest and that it is good news for BAe and those involved in the Rover Group.
Mr. Michael Stern: Will my right hon. and learned Friend give a clear assurance to the House that any future application for launch aid by BAe will in no way be affected by its link with the Rover Group, whether or not the Rover Group is running at a profit at the time and whatever means of financing the Rover Group is being conducted by BAe?
Mr. Clarke: I am not anticipating any early application for more launch aid from BAe, because we have only recently concluded the launch aid arrangement for the A330 and A340. If any future launch aid applications are made, we shall look at them on exactly the same basis as we have looked upon past applications in the light of our statutory obligations and our judgment whether they are justified in order to get a project under way in the interests of the national economy. I can assure my hon. Friend that the agreement that I have announced today in no way affects our dealings with BAe on the other parts of its business.
Mr. Allan Rogers: Will the Minister explain the logic of the sequence that when private companies go bust they are taken into public ownership to protect jobs, with taxpayers' money they are turned into profit, and then, when they are in profit, they are handed back to private enterprise? All the industries that have been nationalised in the past 20 years have been badly run in the private sector. What guarantees has the Minister that this enterprise will be better run in the private sector than it presently is in the public sector?
Mr. Clarke: I do not want to give too long an answer to explain the sequence of events. I am sure that hon. Members will recall the background. The economic and industrial climate in the country was quite disastrous to the success of any major manufacturing industry. There was raging inflation, large public sector deficits and a
896
steady loss of competition in international markets. Car companies were overmanned and inefficient, with over-powerful and out-of-control local trade union leadership encouraged by the Government of the day to continue to obstruct any moves towards real competitiveness and higher efficiency. The Government then nationalised the company to protect it against reality and to subsidise continued over-manning and inefficiency. Nearly £3 billion-worth of taxpayers' money was lost in covet-mg the losses.
Then a Government came in who were determined to improve the climate of British industry, to back up the management that wished to turn the company around, and to support Graham Day and his team in their efforts to produce the first trading profits. We are now putting the company back where it belongs, in the private sector, in an economic environment that is very attractive to the whole of British manufacturing industry.
Mr. Kenneth Hind: Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that two fundamental points are being missed? First, the Rover Group has been purchased by a British company, which is important. Secondly, looking at the balance sheet of the Rover Group, and bearing in mind that my right hon. and learned Friend certainly is not in a seller's market, he and his Department have achieved a very good deal indeed for the taxpayer. Will he confirm that when he approaches the Commission, he will argue that Renault recently had 1·2 billion-worth of debt written off by the French Government, with the approval of the Commission? When he argues under articles 92 and 93 of the treaty of Rome, will he use the same arguments to gain approval for the deal as the French Government used?
Mr. Clarke: I share my hon. Friend's pleasure at the fact that the company that made an offer to the Government for the Rover Group is a British company and one of our major manufacturing companies. That is welcome indeed. I agree that the deal that we have struck in selling the Government's shareholding is reasonable and fair and perfectly advantageous to the taxpayer and to the companies involved.
When we go to the European Commission we shall point out that the state aid that we shall be providing will be part of the process to return the company to the private sector, where we expect it to thrive in a competitive environment. Therefore, I trust that the Commission will look favourably upon the suggestion as a logical step in getting rid of a history of subsidy and loss and enabling the company to enter a privatised setting, which ought to be consistent with the whole policy of the Community towards the European market.
Mr. James Lamond: What is so special about British Aerospace, which is declaring redundancies in my constituency, that it has managed to get the Government to suspend their normal policy of allowing free play of the market in competition and getting a splendid bargain because it happens to be the first in the queue to ask for it? Bearing in mind that it took a long time for the Government to decide to give launch aid, even as a loan, it is surprising that the decision was reached so quickly. May we look forward to the day, as the owners of Rover, that the company will ask for launch aid for new models? Will the taxpayers have such a bargain when that is taken into consideration?
Mr. Clarke: British Aerospace has reached this successful conclusion because it was the first company since the election to put the proposition to us that it wished to acquire a company which everyone knew we proposed to privatise. We gave it exclusive negotiating rights for a period because we feared the disruptive effects on the business if everyone began making bids for it and created a great air of uncertainty for the company, its component suppliers and distributors. I am sorry if the hon. Gentleman finds the speed of the negotiations disconcerting. It is true that for a change this piece of business has been conducted with reasonable secrecy, expedition and good sense on all sides. That is the way in which good government should be conducted.
Mr. David Gilroy Bevan: I thank my right hon. and learned Friend for the excellence of the arrangements, and particularly for the fact that a formula has been found to keep the company British. I would have thought that that would find complete accord with my colleagues across the Floor. Will the understanding and the obligation given that the company will remain in the present hands for the next five years also apply to all subsidiary parts of the company, including Land Rover? This would allow for the further protection of the employment of my constituents.
Mr. Clarke: My hon. Friend represents Yardley in Birmingham and I am sure that his opinion coincides with that of the vast majority of the people who live in Birmingham whose well-being depends to a large extent upon the industry. We will have to wait to see, but my expectation is that this arrangement will be welcomed by the work force and by all those who work in the area and are dependent on the Rover Group for business. Most will share my hon. Friend's view of the purchaser and welcome the fact that British Aerospace has been the successful purchaser. We have entered into an agreement whereby British Aerospace will not be able to sell the whole business or any substantial part of it during the five-year term. I am certain that it will not be able to sell off Land Rover separately during the five-year agreement.
Mr. Tam Dalyell (Linlithgow): Will the Minister help us by clarifying paragraph 3 of his statement:
"Before entering into a contract with British Aerospace we considered a number of confidential expressions of interest, but none amounted to a specific offer"?
How could there be a specific offer from anyone if no one had the information on which to base the offer, which was exclusive to British Aerospace? Was there any interest from Ford, and did Ford express any annoyance at the way in which it was treated over Austin Rover?
Mr. Clarke: I cannot disclose commercially confidential approaches to us. I certainly cannot start disclosing the nature of the representations made to us by different companies or identify the companies involved. As I have said, we had various expressions of interest, but none of those amounted to an offer. —[Interruption.] The hon. Gentleman has given an explanation of why, perhaps, there was no offer. I have explained to the House why we felt that it was right to agree to the request of British Aerospace and Rover Group that there should be a period of exclusive negotiation with British Aerospace. The alternative would have caused considerable uncertainty to all in, and possibly disruption to, the business. Therefore, we pursued exclusive negotiations, which have come to a successful conclusion. No one could complain about that.
Mr. Dalyell: What about Ford?
Mr. Clarke: I am not prepared to disclose the nature of our exchanges with individual companies or to identify those companies. Such approaches are commercially confidential.
Mr. Ian Mills: Does my right hon. and learned Friend find as surprising as I do the degree of hypocrisy and synthetic attitude of many Opposition Members, including the hon. Member for Dagenham (Mr. Gould), in particular about foreign ownership? Will he confirm that this must be the best offer for the 45,000 people working at Austin Rover? Does he agree that the need for a secure future for the 51,000 people working in the distribution network, and the hundreds of thousands who work in the components industry, is often forgotten? Finally, does he remember the great opposition from Opposition Members to Land Rover going to General Motors and Austin Rover going to Ford, and does he agree that the solution for a good British company bringing in technical skills must be the best possible solution?
Mr. Clarke: I agree with my hon. Friend. I am sure that had there been privatisation with another company there would have been wild indignation from the Opposition if another car manufacturer had expressed an interest, or an overseas company had expressed an interest. They are pressed to find objections to British Aerospace, which is a rather popular and successful company. As far as I can see, their main criticism has been about the terms that we struck. They are trying to convince the House and the public that the Labour party would have struck a more successful privatisation deal with some unknown purchaser—an unlikely concept.
With regard to my hon. Friend's last serious point, it is particularly good news for all those who work in the components industry. There will be more jobs in the industries that provide the components for the Rover Group, such as Unipart, than there are in the Rover Group itself. The smooth transition from one ownership to another, with no threat of disruption to the business, will be welcomed by all those interested in the components industry.
Several Hon. Members rose—
Mr. Speaker: Order. I must have regard to the fact that there is to be another statement after this one and that there is a very heavy day in front of us. I shall allow questions to continue for another five minutes and then we must move on. I say now, rather than at the end of this statement, that I shall consider calling those hon. Members who are not called now when this matter is debated on another occasion. I ask for brief questions, please.
Mr. Geoffrey Lofthouse: The Minister has told us that Rover's debts are £1·6 billion. What are the company's assets, and how do they compare?
Mr. Clarke: In December, the net asset value was £334 million, but I must ask the hon. Gentleman to await the report and accounts of the company and the balance sheet that will eventually be put to British Aerospace shareholders for a further and an up-to-date figure.
Mr. Richard Page: When my right hon. and learned Friend considers the remarks

899
of the Opposition, will he remember that they reached the zenith of their financial control with the operation of the National Enterprise Board? Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware that other large motor manufacturing companies have billions of pounds worth of invesment lined up to produce new models and new developments? Does he therefore accept that the terms that he has announced today are barely enough, if enough, to ensure that Rover escapes permanently from the public sector?
Mr. Clarke: I entirely agree with my hon. Friend's comments about the Opposition's record when they were in government. It bears no comparison with our own. I agree also with his final judgment that their attacks upon us show complete schizophrenia. One moment they object to the fact that we are injecting cash to eliminate £800 million of bank debts that would never have been accumulated if the company had not been in the public sector, and the next moment they suggest that the new group will not be strong enough to raise the capital to invest in new models. Had we handed this company to anybody without doing something about the scandalous level of debt that it has been allowed to accumulate when it was under public sector control, it would have been in considerable difficulties. That is why it is a perfectly sensible bargain to get those debts out of the way before the company is returned to the private sector.
Mr. Eddie Loyden: Will the Minister not be so dismissive about the interests of the workers in the company, particularly in relation to the pension fund? Is he aware that today car industry workers are far more alert and aware of the consequences of the pension fund? Recent industrial action in the car industry was not about wages and conditions; it was about pensions. The Minister has been far too dismissive this afternoon of the fact that it is his responsibility to ensure that the interests of the workers in the pension fund are fairly dealt with. There is evidence that the "increases" in no way reflect the amount of the increase in the pension funds.
Mr. Clarke: I am extremely concerned —as concerned as the hon. Gentleman—about jobs in the car industry and about the well-being of the work force. My opinion is that the position of the work force in this company will be made better, not worse, by transferring the company to the private sector, where it will have a better chance of thriving in the market place. One reason why we are acting as we are is that we believe that privatisation is in the interests of commercial organisations and of all those whose livelihood depends upon them.
The last time that we had an exchange on the pension fund I made inquiries to find out what the dispute was about over the Rover Group's pension fund. It seems to arise from a misunderstanding of a perfectly ordinary process, whereby a pension fund has accumulated a surplus that has been earned on the investment of both employer and employees. The employer and the employees are benefiting from that surplus by way of a holiday on contributions for the employer and improved pension benefits for the members of the fund. That does not justify a strike in the car industry or in any other industry, and I trust that the hon. Gentleman will not lend his support to groundless strikes in this or in any other industry.
Mr. Tim Smith: Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware that he has secured a very good deal
900
for the British taxpayer, in the sense that he has found a willing buyer for the Rover Group? Does he recall the uncertainty that prevailed just two years ago and the damage that was done to the business of the company at that time? Will he contrast that with the excellent way in which he has concluded this deal, which guarantees British ownership?
Mr. Clarke: I am grateful for my hon. Friend's judgment of the bargain that we have struck, and I have every regard for his opinion in these matters, which is more accurate than that of our critics on the Opposition Benches. I also agree with my hon. Friend that most people outside the House will welcome the fact that the successful purchaser is a great British company and that it is a major exporter of manufactured goods from this country. I am quite sure that the opposition from the other side of the House would have been very strong if anything else had occurred.
On the last occasion, when we did not proceed in a different way but when rumours emerged about the interest of other companies, the effect was devastating, and in a period of about two months the company lost 2 per cent. of its market share, which it has never recovered. This time, the comparable confidentiality, the expedition of the negotiations and the fact that we never declared open house to all the other bidders has been to the great advantage of the company and of all those who work for it.
Mr. Greville Janner: What are the legal arrangements that are allegedly designed to make it not in the interests of British Aerospace to sell within rive years, and how enforceable are those arrangements? How can the Minister possibly say to the House and to the nation that he has obtained the best possible offer when he did not provide to any company other than British Aerospace the information that would have been needed in order to obtain appropriate offers from anyone else, including Ford?
Mr. Clarke: We have attached terms to the injection of cash into the Rover Group so that, even if there were to be a sale within five years, the first £650 million of any profit would go the Government? It would not therefore be in the financial interests of British Aerospace to avoid that term. If it attempted to use the tax losses over and above the £500 million that remain, then, pound for pound, that benefit would be taken back by the Treasury, so again it would not benefit the company if it sought to do that.
The hon. Gentleman also asked why we gave no other company the opportunity to make an offer. If we had provided everybody else with such an opportunity, we should have run the risk of causing great uncertainty and disruption to the business.
Mr. Phillip Oppenheim: Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware that in 1960 we produced 14 times the number of cars that were produced by the Japanese, but that by 1979 they were out-producing us by eight to one? Have not the British car industry, the British car worker and the British taxpayer paid a heavy enough price already for the years of union plutocracy and the emasculated management of the car industry? Is not this, under very difficult circumstances, an extremely good deal?
Mr. Clarke: I agree with my hon. Friend. In 1988 the vehicle industry in this country is being completely transformed. That has to be compared with the position in the late 1970s, when the Government of the day intervened and poured taxpayers' money into the industry to enable it to remain uncompetitive, overmanned and inefficient, in the belief that somehow that would safeguard jobs in the industry. One sees that there are plenty of Opposition Members who fondly imagine that that is the right way for a Government to behave towards an important commercial undertaking.
Mr. Gould: Can the right hon. and learned Gentleman assure the House, preferably with the authority of his right hon. Friend the Leader of the House, who is sitting beside him, that there will be a full opportunity to debate this extraordinary statement during the week that we return from the Easter recess, particularly so that we can press him for the answers that he has notably failed to give us this afternoon on such issues as the prospective job losses, which the Rover Group must surely have discussed with him? Is he aware that, in the absence of any such assurance I shall ask you, Mr. Speaker, to consider an application this afternoon under Standing Order No. 20 for a debate forthwith?
Mr. Clarke: The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House is sitting beside me, and he has intimated that he will welcome an opportunity to discuss, through the usual channels, the possibility of a debate on this matter. I do not think that he would want me to bind him to exactly when that debate is to take place, but I am sure that he has taken on board the request for an early debate. I personally would welcome such a debate.
I realise that the details of this deal are complex but I attempted to be as explicit as possible in my statement. It is remotely possible that when people have studied the details they will not wish to press for such a debate, but if they do so we shall be happy to debate the matter once more. I look forward to taking the matter further. I hope that by the time we hold our debate I shall have more encouraging news about our progress towards making this conditional agreement a final agreement—as we make progress with the European Commission and as we move towards the general meeting of British Aerospace shareholders.

Urban Policy (Scotland)
4.29 pm
The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Malcolm Rifkind): With permission, Mr. Speaker, I should like to make a statement about urban policy in Scotland. I am today publishing a document entitled "New Life for Urban Scotland" which explains our policies and sets out our plans for major new initiatives. Copies are available in the Vote Office and have been placed in the Library.
Since the 1970s much has been done to revive Scotland's urban areas and in particular to bring new life to inner-city areas, for example through Glasgow Eastern Area Renewal in Leith and in Dundee. It is generally agreed that Glasgow and other areas of Scotland are being transformed. But in the 1980s it is the people living in the large peripheral estates who are suffering most from choice in the type of housing they occupy, who have the least say in running their communities, and who are most dependent on state benefits and services.
In drawing up our proposals, we have carefully examined the lessons of recent experience. Future action will therefore be firmly based on the principles of helping residents take more responsibility in various ways for their communities, of full involvement of the private sector, and of partnership between different public bodies and the private sector.
It is especially important that we renew the self-confidence and initiative of local people and help them to assume increased responsibility for their communities. The way is open through, for example, involvement in training opportunities, tenant co-operatives, housing associations, school boards, small businesses and self-employment. It is essential that residents are fully involved and committed to plans to regenerate their areas.
The private sector has already demonstrated the important part it can play in bringing back new life to deprived urban areas. The Government are committed to increasing further their involvement, both through our wider economic policies and through encouraging investment in deprived areas. It is part of the task of both central and local government to create a climate in which the private sector feels able to invest. We hope the private sector will examine with enthusiasm the scope for investment in areas currently neglected. We want to see it involved from the outset in new urban regeneration initiatives. There are opportunities for investment which would both be of benefit to the private sector and make a major contribution to the economic and social regeneration of these areas.
For the Government's part, there is in place in Scotland a strong array of instruments to pursue urban renewal. some £500 million will be spent on urban renewal in Scotland in 1988–89, over and above local authority spending. The Scottish Development Agency is using its comprehensive powers in many places. Last year it spent £62 million on urban renewal. Urban renewal is a major priority in its corporate plan over the next few years.
The urban programme will spend £44 million this year, an increase of £6·4 million. We are announcing today approval of 225 urban programme projects, worth £8·9 million. Scottish Homes is soon to be created as a new and important housing agency, which will work alongside the SDA in pursuing urban regeneration. It will build on the expertise of the Housing Corporation and the Scottish

903
Special Housing Associaton, which between them spend over £125 million per year on urban renewal and which fully support the proposals that am announcing today.
In addition, we are announcing today that £25 million is being specifically earmarked next year for new housing-related urban regeneration initiatives by the Housing Corporation. This replaces the original figure of £12 million referred to in paragraph 45 of the document. As announced on Friday, we have also just issued extra housing capital allocations to district and islands councils totalling £77 million, as a result of the popularity of council house sales. Policies on health and social services, crime, education and training provide special support to areas of urban deprivation. Enterprise is to be encouraged through the wide network of enterprise trusts, the enterprise allowance scheme, training and the new range of regional assistance. The Manpower Services Commission will spend some £250 million in urban areas, which will contribute to urban renewal.
With so much already happening, the Government's first aim is to sustain the momentum. But this is not enough; over the next 10 years a new priority must be given to tackling the problems of the peripheral estates. The Government will therefore establish a number of initiatives which will simultaneously pursue economic, environmental, housing and social objectives in peripheral estates. Four major new initiatives will be located in Castlemilk in Glasgow, Ferguslie Park in Paisley, Wester Hailes in Edinburgh and Whitfield in Dundee, subject to consultation with the local authorities and other bodies concerned.
Partnership will be required for taking forward these initiatives, involving the local community, the Government, the SDA, Scottish Homes, the local authorities, the private sector, the health boards, the MSC and other public bodies. The Scottish Office will initiate the development of such partnerships over the next few months and will be responsible for steering their progress. Ministers will be directly involved. The Government will look to the SDA and, in due course, Scottish Homes, to play a leading role in implementing the initiatives, and the initiatives will need a local base in the communities themselves.
Moreover, the SDA, with local authorities, the Housing Corporation and the private sector, has plans well advanced for smaller-scale local initiatives in peripheral estates at Barlanark in Easterhouse, Glasgow, Forgewood in Motherwell and Tulloch in Perth. These pilot initiatives are aimed at revitalising these estates through action on housing, employment and the environment. The public and private sectors will contribute an estimated £45 million to these smaller new pilot initiatives. The SSHA, in consultation with the Housing Corporation, also has in hand an important housing initiative in Castlemilk, which will cost several million pounds.
We expect that these new initiatives will make a major contribution to tackling the characteristic problems of urban decay and will set a pattern for urban regeneration in Scotland into the 1990s. The work of urban renewal in Scotland, however, will extend more widely than these outlying estates, and the policies which we have set out are aimed at bringing new life to cities and towns throughout Scotland.
Mr. Donald Dewar: After all the advance publicity and public relations hype, this
904
statement is a sad anticlimax. What can we say? It is a beautifully produced brochure; it is glossy; it is splendid in its layout; but, sadly, it contains nothing. There is little hope here for those struggling with the effects of urban deprivation. The statement that the Secretary of State has made takes us no further forward. It deals in banal generalities.
Is financial provision not the key? And what have we been given, apart from a gathering of bric-a-brac from the past ingeniously packaged to give the impression of generosity? What new money is included over and above what has already been announced, and what new money is coming directly from the Government? How can anyone be impressed by talk of an additional £77 million for housing authorities when this depends entirely upon receipts? Glasgow's nominal share is £11 million, but all of it is to be found by selling assets. There will not he a penny, as I understand it, from the Government.
Is it not a fact that capital spending on housing in the public sector was scheduled to fall between 1987–88 and 1988–89 from £556 million to £505 million? The one specific addition that I can detect in this document, which is an additional £13 million for urban regeneration, announced today, still leaves in effect a cut of some £38 million between this year and next year. This whole presentation has been a mirage and a confidence trick.
We are promised four new initiatives; it is stated as a bald fact. But where are the details on structure or on funding? We are told that it is too early to specify what these initiatives will cost, clearly because neither the right hon. and learned Gentleman nor his advisers have thought out what is to be done. The document discouragingly warns that the overall level of expenditure on urban regeneration will be determined annually through the public expenditure machinery. On top of that, we are promised that Ministers will be directly involved. There is certainly little to cheer about there.
The Secretary of State boasts about the role of the private sector, but there is not a name to be seen, no hard information, no figures. Unlike the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, he cannot even promise breakfast for the eager entrepreneurs.
Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman accept that we welcome any initiative that involves all the relevant agencies, including local government, is properly funded and does not represent a takeover bid againt the wishes of the local community? There is absolutely no guarantee in this document or in this apology for a statement that those criteria have been met.
Does the Secretary of State recall that he and his colleagues have recently been given to quoting the Grieve report? Has he read the committee's final statement, published yesterday? If so, did he notice its view, on the question whether finance could realistically be expected from the private sector to tackle the problems of urban deprivation, that
"the Scottish Office produced no evidence of a conclusive or even convincing character and obscurity remains"?
Is that not a fair and balanced judgment on today's shoddy exercise in window dressing?
Mr. Rifkind: I can now see what the Glasgow Herald meant this morning when it said:
"Labour's problem is that it opposes everything and appears to have nothing constructive to say."
That sums it up more eloquently than anything that I could possibly say.

905
I noticed that towards the end of his remarks, the hon. Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar) said that the Opposition would welcome any new initiatives that sought to work with the local community and to provide partnership between the public and private sectors, leading to proper provision for the problems. The hon. Gentleman should be aware that that is exactly what the statement does.
I would make the following points in answer to the hon. Gentleman's questions. First, the hon. Gentleman was right to say that, for the most part, we are not talking about new money — [HON. MEMBERS: "Ah!"] No, because resources have not been the problem in the past. Hundreds, if not thousands, of millions of pounds have been invested in Glasgow's housing and in the housing stock of local authorities throughout Scotland. If we are faced today with these appalling problems on peripheral housing estates, as Professor Grieve concluded, resources by themselves will not solve the problem unless we know how to use them adequately.
It so happens that the statement includes about £25 million of new resources to be used by the Housing Corporation. Much of it will be available in the four areas in which the initiatives are to take place. I take pride in the fact that those additional resources are available because of the popularity of the Government's policies of house sales. Tenants have responded to the Government's policy and as a result we can now reinvest the resources into the housing stock in a way that gives double chargrin to Opposition Members. They are upset and annoyed that tenants are buying their houses and that the money is going back into housing to improve the remaining housing stock. I can understand their disappointment, but they cannot expect anyone else to share it.
Secondly, the hon. Member for Garscadden said that he of course welcomed any new initiatives but believed that there was nothing in these initiatives to be welcomed. It will be interesting to see whether Glasgow district council shares his view and whether Edinburgh district council and other local authorities declined to co-operate on the grounds that there is nothing in the proposals to benefit the housing estates in their localities.
Mr. Dewar indicated dissent.
Mr. Rifkind: The hon. Gentleman is now trying to withdraw that insinuation, but he cannot have it both ways. If local authorities believe that the proposals do not represent any significant new initiative, they will doubtless show complete disinterest. But the hon. Gentleman knows as well as I do that if local authorities have the interests of their tenants at heart they will welcome these initiatives.
Finally, the hon. Gentleman asked about the Grieve report. He will appreciate that Professor Grieve identified what the Government have been saying for a long time — that single-tenure housing estates are one of the causes of the problem. Professor Grieve recommended that Glasgow district council should dispose of up to 25 per cent. of its total housing stock, and up to 50 per cent. in the peripheral areas, to have any prospect of resolving the social and economic problems in those localities. If the hon. Member for Garscadden quotes Professor Grieve, I hope that he supports the report's analysis.
Several Hon. Members rose—
Mr. Speaker: Order. I remind hon. Members from Scotland that we have a day ahead of us in which they are heavily involved. It may just be possible—I cannot be certain—that some of their questions to the Minister could be raised in the debates to come. I ask them to ask brief, preferably single, questions, so that we do not delay too long.
Sir Hector Monro: Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that the attitude of the Opposition to any new initiative, whether in housing or Ford at Dundee, is utterly depressing and negative? Will he accept my congratulations on his new policies and, realising that they are so popular, extend them to the rural areas of Scotland, which are anxious to have the opportunity of further urban development? Will he bring in the Scottish Sports Council to help improve the quality of life, either through private money or directly through Scottish Sports Council aid?
Mr. Rifkind: I thank my hon. Friend and acknowledge that many of the rural areas have difficulties which the Scottish Development Agency and other bodies must take into account.
As for my hon. Friend's general point, it is very sad that the Labour party, which claims so often to speak for Scotland, has produced over the years virtually no original thought on housing, education or urban regeneration; it appears merely to believe that resources, irrespective of how they are used, are the solution to all the social problems that we face. The party offers a depressing prospect.
Mr. Bruce Milan: The Secretary of State has mentioned four peripheral estates, but is he aware that they are all in areas that have suffered seriously over the past few years from cuts in housing grant and housing capital allocations? If that money had been available to local authorities, many of the problems in those estates would not exist.
It is pathetic that, even after announcing these initiatives, the right hon. and learned Gentleman cannot give a single penny of new money. He says it is "too early" to specify how much the initiatives will cost, and there is no commitment to extra money. If he wants to call GEAR in aid, he might at least acknowledge that it was launched by the Labour Government—by me, in fact. At the time of its launch we took on the financial commitment for the following five years—that is the difference between what we did and what he is doing.
Mr. Rifkind: If the right hon. Gentleman believes that the problems of Castlemilk or Whitfield, or the other areas, began in 1979—
Mr. Millan: I did not say that.
Mr. Rifkind: I am glad that there is a common view that the peripheral estates in Scotland have suffered problems for many years, on which the resources that even the Labour Government provided for them appeared to have little practical effect.
The GEAR initiative, initiated by the right hon. Gentleman and continued with the full enthusiasm of the present Government, has been a great success. He should therefore be the first to acknowledge that other initiatives, this time in the peripheral housing estates, that involve

907
some principles similar to those of GEAR but which also seek to learn the lessons of GEAR, may have an even better prospect of success.
One of the problems of GEAR was that, although it produced major environmental and housing improvements, it did not provide job opportunities for the local population within GEAR areas, partly, perhaps, because the people were not sufficiently involved in the development of economic opportunities in those areas.
Mr. Archy Kirkwood: Does the right hon. and learned Gentleman accept that if there is no new money, people are entitled to consider this afternoon's statement a piece of cynical window dressing? Does he acknowledge that the statement portrays a worrying trend of seeking to write down the role of local authorities in the new initiatives? That is of great concern to us.
I ask the Secretary of State how towns such as Hawick in my constituency and schemes such as Burnfoot can expect to benefit from his announcement?
Mr. Rifkind: First, I said that there was going to be an additional £25 million for the Housing Corporation. Secondly, areas such as Hawick in the hon. Gentleman's constituency have pockets of severe deprivation.
Mr. Kirkwood: Pockets?
Mr. Rifkind: Yes, pockets: they are small towns.
Mr. Kirkwood: The whole town of Hawick?
Mr. Rifkind: The hon. Gentleman is free to express his view. If the local authority wants to apply for urban aid, it will be eligible for consideration.
Mr. Nicholas Fairbairn: Will my right hon. and learned Friend appreciate that every time he announces Christmas, the hon. Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar) and Opposition Members suggest, by mirage and con tricks, that it is in fact a crucifixion? We welcome today's statement. We in Perthshire are delighted with my right hon. and learned Friend's announcement about Tulloch in Perth. We are glad that he is imitating the great events that occurred, thanks to a Tory administration, in Pilton in Edinburgh, and look forward to him doing the same for the country towns and steadings of Scotland.
Mr. Rifkind: My hon. and learned Friend is correct to give the example of Pilton. There, the involvement of the private sector has, as anyone who knows it will confirm, made a substantial difference to improving the locality and the quality of life of those who live in it.
Mr. John McAllion: If the Secretary of State can tell me what new money falls to the Whitfield estate in my constituency— over and above money already in the pipeline—I shall be pleased to welcome it. However, I remind him that there is more than one peripheral housing estate in Dundee. Half Dundee's population live in estates such as Whitfield. Can the right hon. and learned Gentleman give me a guarantee that the four major area-based initiatives will not be pursued at the expense of less funding, less attention and less care for housing estates everywhere across Scotland?
Mr. Rifkind: I certainly thank the hon. Gentleman for what I think was an indirect welcome for the inclusion of Whitfield in the list of initiatives. While some priority will
908
be given to the four main initiatives, we recognise of course that many other areas in Scotland, including in Dundee, require similar treatment. They cannot all be included in the first areas to be considered. We have tried to achieve a geographical balance, and to recognise some of the different kinds of peripheral estate that require to be the subject of the initiatives we put forward.
Mr. Bill Walker: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the people of Scotland will recognise this initiative as something that really begins to tackle the problems, for the first time, of so many people living in council houses that are in appalling conditions? Successive Governments have failed to tackle these problems, so this initiative will be so welcome along with the involvement of people in their own affairs and in the community in every respect, as well as the involvement of the private sector. All this is real devolution, from which the people of Scotland will benefit.
Mr. Rifkind: My hon. Friend is correct. Unless one gets active participation and not simply acquiescence of the local community, one cannot claim to have regenerated that community. Therefore, we genuinely believe that the local community must be involved in a very substantive way in the developments and initiatives that will take place within their area. It is not simply a question of regenerating buildings, as we must be able to provide a quality of life for the people in that area. That does not mean that we must provide for them; they must be part of that provision if it is to be at all meaningful.
Mr. Norman Buchan: Is not the real situation that the Government, through their policy of cutting and capping local authorities, have created a situation in which building and improvement is grinding almost to a halt? In so far as the glossy developments illustrated in the brochure have come from local authorities, that has been achieved despite and against the actions of the Government. They have given us the HP sauce: when shall we see the bloody meat? When will we get new money? Is there any new money?
Mr. Rifkind: The hon. Gentleman, representing as he does a Paisley constituency, might have preceded his remarks by welcoming the fact that Ferguslie Park is included. —[Interruption.] It may not be in his constituency, but it is a rather curious concept that the hon. Gentleman has suddenly become so protective about anything that happens in the other half of Paisley. I do not take it entirely seriously. This is good news for Paisley and the hon. Gentleman should have had the courtesy to recognise that.
In relation to resources, we announced just two days ago £77 million of new allocations for local authorities, because of the success and popularity of council house sales. Today, I have announced a further £25 million for the Housing Corporation, also as a result of receipts from sales. That will all go towards rehabilitating the housing stock in these localities.
Mr. Alex Salmond: Does it not accurately summarise the Government's priorities that £800 million can be found to privatise the Rover Group, but only £30 million can be found for Scottish housing, as set out in this document? Is it not the case that £30 million is entirely inadequate to deal with the enormity of the

909
problems in Scottish housing? Will the people of Scotland not read the Secretary of State's glossy brochure and ask where the cash is?
Mr Rifkind: On the contrary. If people wish to know about the cash, they will find out about the £500 million to be spent on urban renewal over the next year in the various ways that I have mentioned. The hon. Gentleman, as an economist, should be the first to appreciate that, despite large sums of money being spent already, it is not the sum of the resources, but how they are spent, that determines whether schemes are successful.
Mr. Dick Douglas: Will the Secretary of State accept that, when we are considering past economic developments, the builders of the new town in Edinburgh and the merchant city of Glasgow did not do their discounted cash flow sums? We are looking for coordination of initiatives that involves not just urban Scotland but the whole of Scotland. Will he accept that there are problems, particularly in mining communities, which I have referred to before? They are being decimated under his Administration. People have no buildings like those in the centre of Glasgow to look up to. This is a severe problem. The Secretary of State ought to give it some attention, and give additional money and real resources to these communities.
Mr. Rifkind: I do not dissent from much of what the hon. Gentleman says. It is sad that neither he nor his hon. Friends have said how they believe these additional resources should be spent. They approach this issue simply by saying, "Please give us more money." [Interruption.] Well, in none of the contributions made today and on other occasions have we heard any explanation of new ways in which the hon. Gentleman and his friends would wish to use new resources. My statement indicates a new approach to urban regeneration. If the hon. Gentleman disagrees with it, he should address himself to providing a coherent alternative strategy that does not just depend on the incantation, "Give us more money."
Mr. Eric Forth: Does not my right hon. and learned Friend agree that the quality of life in council house estates over many decades has suffered from the tyranny of mismanagement by local authorities, lack of involvement by the tenants, the iniquitous points system, and many other factors? Will he assure the House that, within his proposals today, there will be a real effort to delegate and devolve to people real responsibility for their own homes and estates? Will he do everything possible to assist in that, and in the continued sale of council houses, as in that way, a new sense of pride and involvement can be engendered in Scottish council house estates.
Mr. Rifkind: My hon. Friend is correct. Glasgow district council is the largest landlord in western Europe. In several local authorities, such as Motherwell, about 80 per cent. of the housing stock is still owned by one landlord — the local authority. I do not think that anyone, whatever his political views, believes that that is healthy. To be fair, even the Labour party seems to have come round to realising, with varying degrees of enthusiasm, that that position is not in the interests of their
910
constituents. The real debate is not in terms of the argybargy that we have heard today, but about how we can meet the aspirations of people in Scotland who live on these housing estates, and who do not believe that the existing arrangements meet their aspirations or provide them with the sort of community or housing that they want for themselves and their families.
Mr. Allen Adams: I think the House should be aware that the Minister and his colleagues have received in the past week, to the best of my knowledge, four or five invitations to visit the north end of Paisley. They have turned down every one of them. That shows how much they care about the north end of Paisley.
Twenty years ago, I was elected by the people of Ferguslie Park to Paisley town council. Ever since then, I have seen every cheapskate Tory politician use the poor as a platform to peddle nonsense. Is the Secretary of State aware that the solution for Ferguslie Park is capital investment and jobs? Unemployment there runs at least 60 per cent.
There is no excuse for the Secretary of State's failure. Next to Ferguslie Park is the biggest airport in Scotland. We have one of the best road systems in Scotland and an excellent railway link from Ferguslie Park and Paisley. Yet the Secretary of State has failed abysmally to attract any medium-sized industrial firm into that area in a decade.
Mr. Rifkind: If the hon. Gentleman is implying by his question that he would rather we did not include Ferguslie Park in our major initiatives, I shall be very happy to consider that.
Mr. Thomas McAvoy: The Secretary of State expressed in his statement enthusiasm for partnership to implement his four initiatives. In Castlemilk, part of which is in my constituency there is a Castlemilk area liaison committee, comprising local authority representatives and statutory bodies and, most important, local community representatives. Will the Secretary of State give an assurance that the Castlemilk liaison committee will be a focal point for implementing the initiative in Castlemilk?
Mr. Rifkind: I hope that it will be very much involved. We shall need to consider who are the proper representatives of the community; if that organisation is representative, of course it will be involved. I must repeat that, with the possible exception of the hon. Member for Dundee, East (Mr. McAllion), it is typical of the Opposition that even hon. Members representing constituencies affected by these initiatives are unable to give them even a general welcome. That shows more clearly than anything I could say that it would not matter a whit what the Government say, as Opposition Members are adopting a negative and hostile attitude that is as boring as it is predictable.
Mr. Menzies Campbell: Paragraph 63 of the document that we have been discussing refers to the contribution of sport and the arts to the quality of life in urban areas. Indeed, both the Scottish Sports Council and the Scottish Arts Council are then referred to with approval in the document. In the light of that approval, and the contributions made by both agencies, what additional funds are the Government prepared to make available to both of them so that they can extend and expand the work that the Government obviously approve of?
Mr. Rifkind: The hon. and learned Gentleman, I am sure, should know that the Government are providing the Scottish Sports Council with particular new resources to enable it to have new headquarters. That has been identified by the Scottish Sports Council as crucial to its continuing work. The Sports Council and the Scottish Arts Council have the same necessity as everyone else, which is to identify the priorities to be attached to their overall activities. I agree with the hon. and learned Gentleman that those activities are relevant to urban regeneration. That is why the Government have drawn attention to them.
Mr. Tony Favell: Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware that one of the most welcome pieces of news this afternoon is that a realisation is dawning among the Scots media that if Scotland were promised the moon, the Labour party would vote against it? Are the Scots aware that their image in the rest of the United Kingdom is that of a bunch of negative nellies?
Mr. Rifkind: There is a lot of sad truth in what my hon. Friend says, because there is an assumption that it would not matter what the Government announced because the Opposition, and even their Members in constituencies that are most directly affected, would find every possible reason—[Interruption.] The fact is that that is the sad reality. It is a matter for great sadness that, instead of seeking to identify in a constructive way changes or improvements that might be made to the Government's proposals, the Opposition simply react in the most predictable and tedious fashion — as they are doing today.
Dr. Norman A. Godman: Paragraph 30 of this document refers to the three extant enterprise zones. It also says that there may be exceptional circumstances which might lead to the creation of a further enterprise zone. What is the likelihood of an announcement about an Inverclyde enterprise zone being made during the Prime Minister's proposed visit to my constituency? Incidentally, I have not been notified of that visit by the right hon. and learned Gentleman or by any other Scottish Office Minister. What is the likelihood that there will also be an announcement about new jobs in Greenock and Port Glasgow during the Prime Minister's proposed visit to my constituency?
Mr. Rifkind: The hon. Gentleman will have to wait to see whether there is an early announcement about an enterprise zone for Inverclyde. I appreciate that the hon. Gentleman attaches enormous importance to Inverclyde obtaining enterprise zone status. I hope that he will show some patience, so that a decision can be reached in due course.
Dr. Godman: Next time, I should be informed.
Mr. Speaker: Order.
Mr. Tony Worthington: Does not the Secretary of State recognise the sheer anger on the Opposition Benches? This document was written 13 years ago in Strathclyde and we have been hamstrung for that time by the lack of resources. Then what occurs? The Secretary of State produces a glossy document claiming the ideas for the Government, but still does not produce resources. I should like to ask the Minister one specific question. Page 7 of the document says:
912
"The private sector effort has been focused through the Glasgow Action initiative."
How much money is there?
Mr. Rifkind: The hon. Gentleman should know that the private sector has in many ways made a major contribution of a kind that the Opposition prophesied would not happen. For example, Local Enterprise Grants for Urban Projects is a Government initiated scheme, and £29 million of LEGUP has brought in over £170 million from the private sector. The hon. Gentleman should he the first to appreciate that the private sector would like to make a major contribution to jobs in his constituency, despite his opposition to its efforts.
Mr. David Marshall: Since my constituency received some of the benefits of the Glasgow Eastern Area Renewal project, I welcome this initiative for other areas even though, unfortunately, it is too little, too late. Will the Secretary of State give us an assurance that these projects will receive the resources that they need to complete the job? The GEAR project did not receive such resources. Will he guarantee that the Government will not pull the plug two thirds of the way through, leaving people feeling bitter and disillusioned, as happened with the GEAR project?
Mr. Rifkind: First, I thank the hon. Gentleman for the comments in the first part of his question. On his latter comments, he will appreciate that, throughout the period of the GEAR project, the Government ensured that major sums of public resources were provided. The fact that GEAR has been the success that almost everyone says it is, must lead him to accept that it could not have been a success if the Government had starved it of resources over the last nine years. The GEAR project was initiated by the hon. Gentleman's Government, but since 1979 the project has been the responsibility of this Government. It could not be the success that it is acknowledged to be throughout the United Kingdom if it had not been generously treated in the way that I have mentioned.
Mr. Kenneth Hind: As one who is interested in urban renewal—[Interruption.]
An Hon. Member: Is he a Member?
Mr. Speaker: Order.
Mr. Hind—may I congratulate my right hon. and learned Friend on a very imaginative approach to a very difficult problem?—[Interruption.]
Mr. Speaker: Order. We are in the United Kingdom Parliament.
Mr. Hind: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Are hon. Members to understand that my right hon. and learned Friend sees the sale of council houses as one of the major vehicles of his urban renewal policy? Is it not an achievement for his Department that he has been able to make £77 million available to councils throughout Scotland to add to the money that he is putting in for urban renewal throughout Scotland?
Mr. Rifkind: There is undoubtedly a need and a desire for greater home ownership in Scotland, but it is not simply a question of home ownership. The crucial objective in these very large peripheral housing estates is a multiplicity of tenure, involving housing associations, tenant co-operatives, home ownership and municipal

913
housing. It is only when we get such a wide variety of housing stock that we can claim to have a proper spectrum of housing opportunity for the people in the locality.
Mr. Nigel Griffiths: Is the Secretary of State aware that, in the Wester Hailes area, his report and statement will not be welcome because his record shows the Secretary of State's commitment to Wester Hailes to be poor? Three years ago, rather than give additional funds to Wester Hailes, the Secretary of State starved Edinburgh district council of capital allocation and the council had to go to Japan to find extra money.
Mr. Rifkind: I say to the hon. Gentleman, as kindly as I can, that in the months that he has ceased to be a councillor for Wester Hailes he has obviously got out of touch with the local community, because only some weeks ago the people in the community wrote to me saying that if the Government were to initiate projects of this kind, they hoped that Wester Hailes would be included.
Mr. Tom Clarke: Will the Secretary of State confirm that, unlike my hon. Friends the Members for Paisley, North (Mr. Adams) and for Paisley, South (Mr. Buchan) we in Monklands endured a recent visit by the Secretary of State? It is not something that I would necessarily recommend to my hon. Friends. Like this glossy document, which covers a multitude of missed opportunities, the visit had much to do with public relations and very little to do with real jobs.
Does the Secretary of State accept that the second largest employer in my constituency, the laudable Summerlee heritage park, deals with industrial archaeology? Have the Government abandoned any industrial strategy that means investing in manufacturing industry? Will our people who have suffered long-term unemployment continue to do so? There is nothing in this document, just as there was nothing in the Secretary of State's visit, that offers those people any real or tangible hope.
Mr. Rifkind: If the hon. Gentleman had been present when I visited his constituency, he would know that the claim that he has just made is unfair. The purpose of my visit was to open some industrial workshops that are providing employment in the Coatbridge area. So relevant was the visit thought to be that the provost of Monklands, who I understand is a political colleague of the hon. Gentleman, and representatives of Strathclyde regional council who are of the same political persuasion as the hon. Gentleman, thought the occasion sufficiently important to merit their attendance, even if the local Member of Parliament did not.
Mr. Brian Wilson: Will the Secretary of State confirm that every pretty picture in this brochure is the product of work initiated by or involving either a creative Labour local authority or an organisation brought into being by a Labour Government? Will he reflect upon that before spitting any more venom at the Opposition and the Labour party in general? I exclude from the category of pretty pictures his own rather unflattering portrait, for which we claim absolutely no responsibility.
Will the Secretary of State say what there is in this document for areas such as my constituency, which contain many manifestations of urban blight but which
914
apparently are not to be offered any solutions? Does he agree that, while we might ingratiate ourselves temporarily with the right hon. and learned Gentleman and his colleagues by expressing warm welcomes for glossy documents, we would scarcely be doing a duty to the over 50 per cent. of people of Scotland who placed their faith in the Labour party if we were to lead them to confuse myth with reality?
Mr. Rifkind: Making the same exception as the hon. Gentleman did with regard to my portrait, I can confirm that all the projects to which those photographs refer were entirely funded by the Government or while the Government have been in office.
With regard to the value of the proposals, I find some paradox in the hon. Gentleman's question. On the one hand, he says that the document is worthless and of little value to the areas mentioned, but he then goes on to ask why no one from his constituency is included. He must make up his mind. If it is of little value to anyone, he should be uninterested in whether his constituency is affected.
Mr. John Redwood: What scope is there for increasing asset sales and raising more money that way from underused or badly managed assets in the public sector and for attracting more private capital? Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that it would be a sign of even greater success for Scotland when he can come to the House and say that the economy is so flourishing that the amount of dependency and reliance on public subsidy has reduced rather than increased?
Mr. Rifkind: That would be true of the United Kingdom as a whole, not simply of any one part of the United Kingdom.
There is indeed a substantial opportunity for further investment through asset sales. In the past week, some £90 million of additional housing expenditure has been announced as being financed as a result of the popularity of the right to buy for council tenants. That example can be emulated in other areas, given that it not only brings pleasure to the tenants involved, but enables much important work to be done on the residual housing stock.
Mr. Henry McLeish: Will the Secretary of State concede that unemployment remains one of the key issues in the inner cities in Scotland and on the peripheral estates? Does he accept that a sizeable proportion of the 300,000 people currently unemployed in Scotland are in the age group 18 to 25 and that many of them are located in the peripheral estates and the inner-city areas? Does he accept that the time is now ripe for a major initiative to be undertaken by the Scottish Office, the Manpower Services Commission and the Scottish Development Agency to move beyond YTS and the community programme and to give some life to many young people who are seeking hope in our great cities and deserve a better deal than they are getting at present?
Mr. Rifkind: I certainly acknowledge that the hon. Gentleman has made perhaps the only constructive contribution from the Labour Benches this afternoon. He is right to say that the problem goes beyond the physical infrastructure and includes employment and economic opportunities in the area concerned. That is why, when the hon. Gentleman has a chance to read the document, he will see that we attach special importance to the fact that only

915
initiatives that provide economic opportunities, either through the generation of small businesses in those estates or through the infusion of private sector investment for employment prospects, will give the full success that we seek.
The right hon. Member for Glasgow, Govan (Mr. Milian), who referred to the GEAR project, would be entitled to say that it did not succeed in every respect. The main area in which it did not succeed as we would all have wished was in respect of jobs in the locality. Although many jobs were created, they were not necessarily created in the GEAR area, but in other parts of Glasgow. We must ensure that employment is created as a result of those initiatives and that it is to the benefit of the people in the locality and not in the wider area.
Mr. Alistair Darling: Will the Secretary of State acknowledge that, in Edinburgh, many of the urban problems that afflict the peripheral estates such as Wester Hailes also afflict the city centre where, not very far from Prince's street, unemployment is running at one of the highest rates in the region, at over 20 per cent?
In an effort to be helpful, will the right hon. and learned Gentleman consider two points? Perhaps he will consider, first, the Government's policy in respect of grants for house improvements, which has endured a stop-start programme over the past three or four years. Secondly, perhaps he will consider MSC schemes and particularly the MSC's policy of funding a project for perhaps one or two years, then withdrawing funding or insisting that the staff change round so that, as soon as the programme gets off the ground, it has to start from square one again. That problem afflicts the city centre and the Secretary of State's constituency.
Mr. Rifkind: There are problems in the city centre in Edinburgh. My hon. Friend's announcement of a new non-HRA additional allocation to Edinburgh district council as well as to other local authorities will undoubtedly have helped in that matter.
The hon. Gentleman should discuss with his colleagues on Edinburgh district council the poor level of application that the council makes for help under the urban programme. Compared with some 45 applications from Glasgow district council, there has been a total of four from Edinburgh district council. The hon. Gentleman should realise that, if Edinburgh district council has the interests of the people of Edinburgh at heart, it is astonishing that it has made a tiny fraction of the applications that Glasgow district council has made. Both local authorities live under the same public expenditure regime. Therefore, if Edinburgh district council has been so inadequate in using the opportunities under the urban programme—it has been even more inadequate than the Lothian regional council—it has only itself to blame if there are many unresolved problems in the city centre.
Mr. Frank Doran: Later today the Secretary of State will be moving new clause 8 to the Housing (Scotland) Bill. That new clause will abolish four specific subsidies under the Housing (Scotland) Act 1987, whch were specially targeted at inner-city areas. I cannot help thinking that there is a paradox between what the right hon. and learned Gentleman is saying now and what he intends to do later. Will he explain that paradox?
Mr. Rifkind: It will be discussed in detail later. Those are all marginal grants which are of little practical benefit. The resources are still being made available, but in a more effective way.
Mr. Thomas Graham: The Secretary of State said earlier that Opposition Members never came up with anything at any time. May I recommend that he reads the Strathclyde document called "Social Strategy for the Eighties"? He has certainly picked up a great deal from that document and put it into his document. Strathclyde regional council has been pushing for many years to involve local communities, private groups and other groups. It is strange to see such a document.
I remember when the previous Secretary of State for Scotland visited the Linwood site and said, in front of many people, that, if anyone came along and wanted to build a factory to produce rubber ducks, the money would be available. The local people set up a group called the Linwood enterprise group. It came forward with a plan to use certain sections of a building to produce goods and work and to give the local folk in Linwood an opportunity to get off the dole and start being creative. Lo and behold, the Scottish Office turned the plan down. The group did not want to produce rubber ducks. It wanted it to produce something meaningful and useful to the community.
When we fly into the airport, as many hon. Members do, we fly over the old factory of India Tyres, which is now vacant. We come along the motorway and we see—
Mr. Speaker: May I interrupt the hon. Gentleman? He must ask the Minister a question.
Mr. Graham: I was just going to put my question.
There are two major areas in my constituency which are lying vacant and are desperate for regeneration and money. This document is meaningless because it does not afford local voluntary organisations the opportunity to get money. It does not show them anything.
Mr. Rifkind: I have no doubt that the hon. Gentleman has problems in parts of his constituency. I can assure him that the document is relevant to the whole of urban Scotland and not simply to the four areas which will be the subject of the major initiatives. Clearly there are areas on which we wish to concentrate in the short term, but the resources currently available bring benefit to useful and meaningful projects all over Scotland, including the hon. Gentleman's constituency.
Mr. John Maxton: Is the Secretary of State aware that flashy advertising and cheap political jibes are no answer to the problems of urban regeneration in Scotland? Is he also aware that his performance this afternoon has been an insult both to his position and to the people of Scotland?
If the right hon. and learned Gentleman is so keen to keep saying that Opposition Members want nothing but money thrown at them, does he remember receiving from myself a document called "The Castlemilk Initiative" some three years ago? That document was as glossy as this, but it had much more substance. It was produced by the Castlemilk liaison committee, to which my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Rutherglen (Mr. McAvoy) referred earlier.
We discussed that document with the then Minister, Michael Ancram. We had lengthy discussions with him.

917
We produced every idea and initiative on economic planning, jobs, housing and environmental improvements in Castlemilk. We and Castlemilk representatives had the ideas and asked for one thing — money. Does the Secretary of State remember his junior Minister's answer? It was no.
Mr. Rifkind: After listening to the hon. Gentleman's contribution, I am not clear whether he is pleased or disappointed that Castlemilk is to be one of the areas for the major initiatives. When the hon. Gentleman has said whether he welcomes or is disappointed by that news, it will begin to be possible to have a coherent dialogue with him.

MATRIMONIAL PROCEEDINGS (TRANSFERS) BILL [LORDS]
Ordered,
That the Matrimonial Proceedings (Transfers) Bill [Lords] be referred to a Second Reading Committee. —[Mr. Lennox-Boyd.]

Horses, Ponies and Donkeys
5.20 pm
Mr. David Amess: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to protect horses, ponies and donkeys against abandonment by their owners; to provide for statutory code of practice on the tethering of horses and ponies; to oblige owners to arrange for a humane method of identification for their animals; and for purposes connected therewith.
I have been reliably informed by people throughout the country that this is the moment for which horses, ponies and donkeys have been waiting. Indeed, a representative of each of those groups was brought to Westminster this afternoon, but I thought it inappropriate to attempt to bring them into the Chamber.
On a more serious note, the Bill attempts to deal with the abuses that these animals undoubtedly suffer. A report recently produced by the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals states that 3,000 horses in Britain live a miserable existence, tethered by a length of rope or chain to a stake in the ground. That restrictive life style is made even worse in many cases when poor tethering and lack of attention mean that horses suffer severe discomfort and even death.
People who lack suitable facilities for these animals choose to restrict their movement by tethering, usually by a rope or chain attached around the animal's neck to a head collar and then fastened to a stake secured to the ground. Increasingly, parents buy a pony for their child without giving any thought to the requirements of the animal's upkeep or the costs involved in looking after it properly. The RSPCA inspectors' research found that many people had no idea of the amount of land required or quality of food needed to look after these animals properly. The cost of keeping a horse is enormous.
The horsemeat trade to the continent is especially prevalent in my part of Britain, the south of England. Horses waiting for the knacker's yard have a low economic value and do not receive anything like the attention they require. A particular cause for concern is the large number of horses and ponies left to fend for themselves on areas of hostile or non-habitable land, such as the Essex marshes. They are often left for several months before being rounded up. In the middle of the night, a van mysteriously arrives, the horses, ponies and donkeys are put into them, and they are then used for horsemeat. These incidents are repeatedly reported but neither the police nor the local authority can take any action.
We should consider the plight of horses used to earn a livelihood—for example, in sea coaling in the north-east of England. Many areas have a tradition of horse keeping dating back to the use of pit ponies, which were well cared for, but now some of these animals are not kept in a wholly suitable fashion.
I should like to outline the precise need for this legislation and why I believe that the Protection of Animals Act 1911 is not sufficient to give the protection that so many hon. Members want for these animals. Over the past year, the number of convictions secured for cruelty to animals increased by 17 per cent. Complaints to the RSPCA from the general public about tethered horses rate second only to those about the ill-treatment of dogs. Complaints increase when temperatures drop and horses tied to stakes or trees on wasteland are exposed to rain, wind or snow, with no shelter or little attention. An

919
excellent code of practice has been drawn up for the proper tethering of equines by the RSPCA, the British Horse Society and the Horse and Pony Protection Association.
The Bill will attempt to put a stop to illegal tethering by making it an offence to tether a horse without proper provision for the animal's well-being. Owners guilty of such ill-treatment shall commit an offence under section 1 of the Protection of Animals Act 1911. Horses can be badly treated because they are not classed as farm animals, and this is a gap in the law.
My long-term aim is development of an identification system for these animals, because few are properly marked. Although I recognise that it might be difficult to undertake such a scheme, one hallmark of the Government is that they have never stood back from attempting to introduce legislation simply because it is too difficult. The Government seek to introduce legislation because they think it is right.
As it stands, the 1911 Act makes it difficult to prove an offence, whereas this Bill defines suffering more easily, making ill-treatment a specific offence and thus making it easier to obtain convictions. More important, the Bill will prevent suffering, and it is in that spirit that I hope that the House will support it.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill ordered to he brought in by Mr. David Amess, Sir Bernard Braine, Mr. David Alton, Mr. Gerald Bermingham, Mr. Harry Cohen, Mr. Robin Corbett, Mr. Stan Crowther, Miss Janet Fookes, Mr. Harry Greenway, Mr. Ken Hargreaves, Mr. Greg Knight and Mr. Allan Roberts.

Horses, Ponies and Donkeys
  HORSES, PONIES AND DONKEYS
  Mr. David Amess accordingly presented a Bill to protect horses, ponies and donkeys against abandonment by their owners; to provide for a statutory code of practice on the tethering of horses and ponies; to oblige owners to arrange for a humane method of identification for their animals; and for purposes connected therewith : And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Friday 15 April and to be printed. [Bill 135.]
Orders of the day

  Housing (Scotland) Bill
  As amended (in the Standing Committee), considered.
  5.27 pm
  Mr. Norman Hogg: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. This afternoon, we had a statement from the Secretary of State for Scotland. We are becoming used to these statements because the Government in Scotland are struggling I do not understand why a massive number of civil servants from the Scottish Office seem to be necessary to assist with such statements. Is there some way in which the House can regulate who attends in an official capacity? This is an important point because some Opposition Members have no confidence in the Scottish Civil Service since—
  Madam Deputy Speaker (Miss Betty Boothroyd): Order. The hon. Member knows that no breach of order has been committed and that this is not a point of order for the Chair.
  Mr. Hogg: Further to the point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker.
  Madam Deputy Speaker: Is it a fresh point of order?
  Mr. Hogg: Yes, Madam Deputy Speaker. Surely, Members of the House regulate, through their Standing Orders, who attends the House. Is it appropriate for a Member to object to the presence of so many civil servants, brought here at great cost to the Scottish people, for little purpose?
  Madam Deputy Speaker: That is not a point of order. There is no Standing Order that governs the attendance of such staff.
  Mr. Hogg: Further to the point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker—
  Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Member is delaying very important business concerned with housing in Scotland. Does he seek to make a fresh point of order —one with which I call deal?
  Mr. Hogg: The point that I seek to make is that there must be some means of raising this matter. Let me leave it at that and I shall find some means of raising the matter on another occasion.
  Madam Deputy Speaker: The hon. Member is a frequent attender in the Chamber. He could seek to raise the matter through an early-day motion or the Procedure Committee. I am sure that it is not beyond his wit to deal with this matter by other means.

  Housing (Scotland) Bill
    New clause 7

      COST FLOOR LIMIT ON DISCOUNT ON PRICE OF HOUSE PURCHASED BY SECURE TENANT
      ".—(1) In subsection (1) of section 62 of the Housing (Scotland) Act 1987 (purchase price of house being purchased in pursuance of tenant's right) for the words 'subsections (7) and (8)' there shall be substituted the words 'subsection (6A)'.
      (2) For subsections (7) to (9) of that section there shall be substituted the following subsections—
      `(6A) Except where the Secretary of State so determines, the discount for the purpose of subsection (1) shall not reduce the price below the amount which,

      921
      in accordance with a determination made by him, is to be taken as representing so much of the costs incurred in respect of the house as, in accordance with the determination, is to be treated as—

      (a) incurred in the period commencing with the beginning of the financial year of the landlord which was current 5 years prior to the date of service of the application to purchase the house or such other period as the Secretary of State may by order provide; and

      (b) relevant for the purposes of this subsection, and, if the price before discount is below that amount, there shall be no discount.

      (6B) An order under subsection (6A) shall be made by statutory instrument subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament and may make different different provision in relation to different cases or circumstances or different areas.'.
      (3) In subsection (10) of that section, for '(9)' there shall be substituted '(6A)'.
      (4) Subsections (11) to (13) of that section shall cease to have effect.
      (5) In section 76 of the Housing (Scotland) Act 1987 (duty of landlords to provide information to secure tenants) in subsection (1), for paragraph (c) there shall be substitued the following paragraph
      "(c) section 62(6A) may affect any price fixed as regards the house under section 62(1),".'.
      (6) The said sections 62 and 76 shall, however, continue to apply as originally enacted in relation to the price of a house in respect of which the offer to sell (within the meaning of section 63 of the Housing (Scotland) Act 1987) was served on the tenant prior to the commencement of this section; but nothing in this subsection restricts the power of the tenant to withdraw his application to purchase or prejudices the effect of such withdrawal."—[Lord James Douglas-Hamilton]
      Brought up, and read the First time.
      The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Lord James Douglas-Hamilton): I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
      Madam Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to take Government amendments Nos. 102 and 103.
      Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: I would not wish to shrink from responsibility for the fact— indeed, I very much welcome the fact — that housing is regarded as such a supreme priority in Scotland that a considerable number of civil servants do, indeed, attend housing debates. It is a measure of the importance that we attribute to the matter.
      Mr. Norman Hogg: The Under-Secretary raises an important point in referring to the fact that so many civil servants have been brought to the House to support him on this important matter. Can he tell the House how many civil servants have been brought from Scotland today to support him at the Dispatch Box?
      Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: I cannot give the exact number. However, we regard future housing provision in Scotland as of supreme importance. Some of the amendments that we shall be debating are very complex, and it is vital to get them right and ensure that they are in a form that stands the test of time.
      Mr. Sam Galbraith rose—
      Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: The hon. Gentleman will have his chance later.
      The amendments seek to give effect to the Government's decision, as announced on 1 March, and as
      922
      I explained in Committee, on the right-to-buy cost floor rule. The new clause and the two amendments seek to repeal the present arrangement under which the discount available to tenants wishing to exercise their right to buy can be restricted, if the sale would otherwise take place at a price less than the debt outstanding on the house. We suggest instead that discount should not bring the price of the house in terms of the right-to-buy provisions below the historic costs incurred by the landlord in providing or improving the house since the relevant date, or the undiscounted market value if that is lower. The relevant date will be the beginning of the financial year five years before the right-to-buy application is made.
      So if a local authority tenant applies to buy his house in November 1988, the cost floor will be the total costs incurred by the authority on that house since 1 April 1983. The price that the tenant has to pay for his house will fall below that figure only if the market value, as determined by the district value, is less than those costs. We propose that the relevant date should roll forward each year. So if a tenant applies in November 1989, the cost floor will be the costs incurred on the house since April 1984.
      Hon. Members will recall that our White Paper last November suggested that the discount restrictions involved in the outstanding debt test should be abolished completely. We have, however, taken note of the many representations received from local authorities and other interested parties that difficulties could arise — on building and modernisation programmes and on house allocation—if we were not to keep in place some kind of discount restriction on new or newly modernised houses. The proposals we are bringing forward in these amendments reflect the care with which we considered these representations.
      Mr. Tam Dalyell: I was not a member of the Standing Committee, so my colleagues on both sides of the House who worked hard in that Committee will forgive me if I ask a question. In the areas that the Minister and I represent — Queensferry and Linlithgow — there have been problems with the definition of "newly modernised". What is the definition of "newly modernised"?
      Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: I cannot give a technical definition, but I can give a general off-the-cuff definition. Houses that have been modernised by the district council will be taken into account in the five-year period. If the house has been modernised in the five-year period, the costs will be added to the historic cost of the House and it will be taken into account.
      Mr. Dalyell: In the five-year period?
      Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: In the five-year period; that is absolutely right. I think that this is a matter of common sense. I do not think that the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) would disagree about what constitutes a modernisation programme or what a local authority might define as a modernisation programme.
      Mr. John McAllion: Will the Minister confirm that the price must not fall below the historic cost involved in the previous five years but that if the tenant waited six years, the price could fall as low as that tenant's discount enabled it to fall? The tenant can get the full discount after six years even though the council may have spent £20,000 on modernising the house six years before. Is that right?
      Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: The hon. Gentleman is right, but I should make it clear, as I did in Committee, that housing support grant would be increased if there was an adverse impact on the figures for the authority concerned, given that that authority was receiving housing support grant; some authorities just outside housing support grant might be brought back into it as a result.
      Mr. Dalyell: There is a problem here. I have some sympathy with the Minister when he says that the question whether a house is newly modernised is a matter of common sense, but I am clear that in two cases the matter has gone to lawyers. There needs to be some kind of legal definition. What the Minister and I might think is common sense might not be accepted by people's solicitors.
      Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: I shall be delighted to look into the hon. Gentleman's constituency cases. Indeed, I should be grateful if he would send me the details because it is very important that these matters should be properly resolved.
      I believe that the proposals will meet the general points of concern raised—for example, by local authorities—while at the same time allowing more tenants to purchase their houses without a restriction of the discount to which they are entitled on the strength of their public sector tenancy records.
      The new clause refers to a determination which the Secretary of State will make on the costs that should be taken into account in calculating the new cost floor. We intend that the determination applying in Scotland should be broadly similar to that which applies at present in England and Wales under section 131 of the Housing Act 1985.
      Mr. Andrew Welsh: Is the Minister saying that under his proposal it is still possible to sell a council house below its outstanding debt? Will he clarify that point?
      Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: In certain circumstances, yes, but we have to bear in mind that a house increases in value considerably in the five-year period—perhaps by as much as 10 per cent. a year. The new clause represents a compromise that will meet the aspirations of tenants who wish to purchase with a discount while not disadvantaging local authorities. That is why, after careful thought, we proposed the new clause in this form.
      The provisions in the new clause and the consequential technical amendments represent a fair compromise between the interests of tenants and the interests of public sector landlords. Authorities will be able to adopt sensible building, modernisation and allocation policies without the distorting effect that the absence of any cost floor might have introduced, and more tenants will be able to exercise their right to buy without having their discount entitlement reduced. I commend the new clause and the amendments to the House.
      Mr. John Home Robertson: The civil servants referred to by my hon. Friend the Member for Cumbernauld and Kilsyth (Mr. Hogg) were not much help to the Minister when he was bowled a difficult one by my hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell). I understand why he brought those civil servants here; he has no Scottish Back Benchers, although I see the seventh cavalry arriving in the form of the hon. Member for Tayside, North (Mr. Walker).
      924
      What we need in housing in Scotland is not civil servants but brickies. We seek from the Government some indication that they will ensure that houses are built and improved to cater for the needs of people in Scotland. The Government are simply trying to redistribute existing housing stock in an ill-considered manner. I stress that the Labour party strongly supports the development of home ownership in Scotland, but we should be encouraging home owners and private developers to invest in housebuilding and in the improvement of housing stock rather than simply raiding the public sector housing stock as has happened in recent years.
      We object to the way in which the Government approach this question, which is reckless in a number of ways. Sadly, we are already discovering that it is reckless from the point of view of some home buyers, because people who have bought their council houses are finding that they cannot afford the real costs of home ownership, and a disturbingly large number are becoming homeless as their homes are repossessed by building societies. In my constituency, 5 per cent. of the allocation for council houses last year went to people whose homes were repossessed because of mortgage default. Therefore, owner-occupation is not the best answer for everybody, and the policy of encouraging owner-occupation regardless of the consequences does not always make sense.
      That policy is also tragically harmful to the prospects of homeless people and for those who are stuck on housing waiting lists. Every time another council house is sold—although that may be very nice for the people who buy it— it means that there is less council housing stock, a slower turnover of that housing stock and a longer wait for those who are waiting for housing. Obviously, the policy represents reckless interference in the finances of local housing authorities.
      We are all increasingly weary of reading Scottish Office press statements that give the impression that the Government are giving local authorities money to spend on housing. The Minister issued another only yesterday. The fact is that the Government are allowing Scottish district councils to borrow £58 million less than they were allowed to borrow last year, while the Government cheerfully anticipate a massive increase of £93 million in the profits from council house sales. That projected figure is 60 per cent. more than the figure for last year. Whether all that will come to pass, goodness knows, but it seems a particularly haphazard way of budgeting for capital expenditure on housing in Scotland.
      This "policy" of cut-price council house sales is not a housing policy; it is simply a device for redistributing the ownership of some houses from the community to individuals who may be fortunate enough to qualify for the discounts on offer. There is no question but that that is popular among those who are in a position to take advantage of it. I fully acknowledge that. However, equally, there is no doubt that it has made life more difficult, for the reasons that I have already given, for people who are waiting to rent homes. There is increasing and distressing evidence that owner-occupation is not always the best form of tenure. I have given an example of the situation that is developing in my constituency which, I suspect, will be mirrored elsewhere in Scotland, where people are getting into difficulties after having bought their council houses.

      925
      The new clause seriously undermines the cost floor which at least ensured that district councils were not required to sell houses for less than the outstanding debt on those properties. Under the new clause, the cost floor will cave in after only five years. Incidentally, there is an interesting difference and disparity between that figure and the figure for England and Wales, where there will be an eight-year holding period for the cost floor. Perhaps the Minister will explain that difference.
      Under the new clause, it will be possible for a district council to build a house for, say, £35,000 and if a tenant transfers into the house and qualifies for the full 60 per cent. discount, he might be able to buy the house for as little as £15,000 only five years after it has been built. Therefore, the district council would sustain a loss of £20,000 on that property. Only a small fraction of the 50-year loan charges will have been paid off during that period. Therefore, the district council's remaining tenants will have to pay the cost of that compulsory sale for, perhaps, another 40 years. It is the other tenants who have to pay the costs that the Government are building up for local housing authorities under this scheme.
      There might be a case for that practice if the Government were to make up the shortfall that the district councils will sustain as a result of such sales, but, of course, the Government are not prepared to do that. The Government are saddling district councils with yet another serious financial hardship.
      We know, that the district council house building programme in Scotland has seldom been smaller than at present. In the second quarter of 1987, only 316 houses were started by district councils in Scotland. That figure is only one quarter of the number that were built when the Government came to power nine years ago. Therefore, there has been a disturbing tail-off in the amount of council house building in Scotland. The Bill will make matters substantially worse. District councils will still have to cope with the growing needs of homeless people, but with a diminishing stock of houses to let because of the increasing rate of sales. That is generating particular problems in rural areas in Scotland, but the problem is reflected in other parts of Scotland also.
      I seek one particular assurance from the Minister on new clause 7. Will the Government ensure that no district council runs into trouble with the district auditors for investing in new building while under the threat of compulsory cut-price sales after only five years, as would be possible under the new clause? District councils could be criticised for investing in urgently needed new housing if there is a prospect of those houses being sold within as little as five years for a fraction of what they have actually cost. If the Government cannot give an assurance on that, they will have to accept responsibility for halting the building of homes to let by local authorities in Scotland.
      Finally, I repeat this question to the Minister. Why is the cut-off period for the cost floor being set at five years in Scotland, when the equivalent figure in England is eight years?
      5.45 pm
      Mr. Andrew Welsh: Although I am supposed to be reassured by the Minister, I have certainly not been reassured by his comments on the new clause which, in its
      926
      potential effects on local authorities and therefore on the provision of housing in Scotland, is one of the most serious parts of the Bill.
      By tinkering with time limits, the Government's proposal makes only a slight modification and in no way meets the problems that it will create for local authorities throughout Scotland.
      I regret that amendment No. 165, which I tabled, was not selected, because it would have reversed the present proposed financial unfairness and given local authorities, and the public purse, a greater chance to survive and contribute to Scotland's housing.
      District councils should never be asked, unless as a major exception, to sell houses at less than the outstanding debt on them. The outstanding debt must be the minimum acceptable or the remaining tenants will carry debt for a lost public asset. If less than the outstanding debt is taken, the consequence must be that the poorer tenants will simply carry that loss, due to the Government's council house sales policy. District councils will carry out considerable administrative and legal inquiries on receipt of an application. Those costs also will be unfairly borne, at no benefit, by the remaining council house tenants.
      The new clause merely tinkers with the time limit and fails to address the real and dangerous problems that the Bill poses for local authorities. In one local authority, a house built in a prize-winning council estate at a cost of £34,000 is now likely to be sold for £23,000—in other words, at an immediate loss of £11,000, which is almost equivalent to taking £1 from every council tenant. If that happens due to the sale of only one house, the consequences of a housing sales drive are potentially catastrophic to that district council.
      The new clause will not change that situation. Without any protection for existing local authorities and existing public authority tenants, such sales will be a massive burden on rent payers and will virtually stop all new public sector house building. Is that really what the Government want? The problem strikes at the heart of the public housing system and will lead to the poorest tenants directly subsidising the wealthiest ex-tenants and the best houses.
      Such catastrophic financial losses would also stop modernisations, because the value of a house does not rise proportionately to the money that is invested in modernising it. A £10,000 modernisation, for example, might hardly affect the price arrived at by the district valuers. It would certainly be nothing like the public money that had been invested. Therefore, local authorities would have a disincentive to modernise and to create a capital debt for no return.
      I fear that, unless it is amended, this part of the Bill will lead to the downgrading of public housing to such an extent that it will cease to be a dynamic, progressive and innovative system, due purely to the kind of financial penalties that have been created by legally enforced sales of assets at massive subsidies. That would be bad news for Scotland's homeless people and for those in damp or overcrowded housing, and it would be major blunder by the Government.
      Under the new clause, housing sales can take place at prices below the outstanding debt but without added discount—but going back for only five years on new properties or modernisations. Councils should never be forced to sell houses at vastly less than the outstanding debt. The Government are failing adequately to address this core problem.
      Mr. McAllion: It is always wise to approach any initiative taken by the Government with considerable circumspection.
      I was recently visited by two constituents who looked to benefit from the provision, and were pleased to find that, if they put off buying their house for another couple of years, they would he able to gain substantially. The Government's intention, of course, has been to direct their legislation towards particular groups of tenants, hoping to win them across politically — but to do so at the expense of other tenants who are bound to lose from such measures.
      It is important to place the new clause in the context of the existing housing position in Scotland. The position outlined in the glossy document, "New Life for Urban Scotland", is entirely fictitious. In reality, 30,000 families in Scotland are homeless, and that number is continuing to rise. More than 1·25 million Scots live in overcrowded conditions, and millions of pounds need to be spent to eradicate the damp and condensation that make far too many lives a misery.
      I am especially concerned about the effect of the new clause on the public sector housing authorities, the district councils and the Scottish Special Housing Association—shortly to be replaced by the new agency Scottish Homes. Those are the very authorities many of whose houses badly need modernisation programmes, but their capital budgets make it impossible for them to carry out modernisation and rehabilitation to meet the needs of the tenants to whom they are responsible. The district councils and the SSHA must therefore be selective about which houses they pick for modernisation — so many in the current financial year, and so many in the next. But for the majority of houses in need, there is no prospect of modernisation or rehabilitation in the short or medium term.
      My constituents in the Craigiebank area draw my attention again and again to the state of their windows. As the hon. Member for Tayside, North (Mr. Walker) knows, the housing scheme is one of the most desirable under the control of Dundee district council.
      Mr. Bill Walker: Does the hon. Gentleman remember the capital costs of building the Craigiebank houses? If he does not know the answer, I do, and I shall be delighted to give it to him.
      Mr. McAllion: I am a much younger man than the hon. Member for Tayside, North, so I do not remember. The houses were built pre-war, when the hon. Gentleman assures me that he was fighting the Japs—although, as he is only 50, I doubt that very much. I am making a serious point. My constituents come to me complaining that their windows need replacing. No one would deny that, but the sad reality is that, owing to the restrictions placed on Dundee district council's capital spend programme, the houses are not included in the five-year programme for that council, and there is no immediate prospect of their being accepted for modernisation.
      Mr. Walker: My intervention was meant to be helpful rather than disruptive. The hon. Gentleman does not seem to have understood that. The very desirable Craigiebank houses were built for a few hundred pounds, which is interesting in the light of the impression given by the hon. Member for Angus, East (Mr. Welsh), that all houses will be valued at less than their historic costs.
      Mr. McAllion: That point is not really relevant to my concern. I am talking about modernisation programmes, and the district council's responsibility for selecting groups of houses for those programmes. Many of the tenants have been there for a very long time, and therefore qualify for the maximum discounts—up to 60 or 70 per cent. of the market price. As each house can cost the district council up to £20,000 to modernise, the new clause will add a new factor to local authorities' considerations when they decide which houses and flats to include in modernisation programmes: they will now have to take into account how long tenants have been in the houses.
      Surely it is better to decide to spend up to £20,000 on a house in the knowledge that the tenant has not been in the house for long, and that when, after six years —under the new clause—he applies to buy the house, it will represent a much smaller loss than the council would incur if he had been there for 25 or 30 years, and qualified for the maximum discount. When tenants of houses such as those in Craigiebank, who have been in their houses for a considerable time and qualify for the maximum discount, apply to buy their houses under the new clause, the council—which spent £20,000 only six years earlier—will experience a much more serious loss than if it had modernised a house whose tenants have been there for only a short period.
      The new clause contains an in-built bias against two groups of tenants: those who have been in their houses for a long time, and those who are in a position—and the council knows it — to buy their council houses The council will have other considerations. It must consider the important group of tenants who live in damp houses, houses with condensation, overcrowded houses —properties that are unsuitable for one reason or another. Tenants on low incomes or social security benefit will never be in a position to buy their houses.
      Surely the council will say to itself, "Is it not better to spend what money we have for modernisation programmes on those who we know will be our tenants for the next 20 or 25 years, so that the money is spent for the benefit of our tenants, rather than for those who will buy their houses from us in five or six years?" To spend the money on houses that will be transferred from council stock will represent a loss not only to the council but to all the tenants who live in unsuitable housing, and who will never be able to buy their houses and take advantage of new clause 5.
      The Minister has given an incentive to district councils to choose for their modernisation programmes only the houses that they know will remain in the housing stock for a long time, and on which it will therefore be in their financial interests to spend money. Why should they spend £20,000 on a house that they know they will lose in six years' time? District councils are not fools, and they will act accordingly.
      The Minister assured me that there would be a readjustment of housing support grant for authorities that are still in housing support grant, or just out of it. Dundee district council lost all housing support grant in 1983. It has been many years since it received any such grant, and there will be no readjustment or compensation for it. Every time that it spends money, it will take into consideration how long the house is likely to remain in its ownership. The new clause contains a bias against tenants in a position to buy their houses, as opposed to those who have been in their houses for a long time.
      Mr. Dalyell: On one matter I do not share the views expressed by some of my colleagues. I happen to think that extremely good advice from civil servants in the Scottish Office has been available to Scottish Ministers for a long time. I can speak only for myself, but whenever I have had occasion to approach civil servants I have always received courteous and helpful responses. I do not go along with what too many politicians are doing—casting a slur on the Civil Service. That, I feel, is quite unacceptable. To be able to criticise civil servants, it is necessary to be very specific with dates and facts.
      In the light of that, I think that the Minister has probably received good advice on two matters, on which I should like to ask questions. Some of my hon. Friends, including Front Benchers, raised the issue of slow turnover. Necessarily, evidence is anecdotal, and I do not believe that any of us, without statistics, can form a very good idea of how bad the position has become. In parts of my constituency, however, it seems to have reached very sad proportions. In areas such as Queensferry, where there is a high demand for housing, it is extremely difficult for those who were born and bred there to obtain it. That is also true in other parts of the Linlithgow constituency. My first question is: has any statistical work been done recently in the Scottish Office to try to give an overall impression of whether turnover is markedly slower than it was before?
      My second question is about modernisation. I think that my constituent, Robert Lee, of the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities and chairman of the West Lothian housing committee, is well known to Ministers. He prompts questions about the rate of modernisation that is possible even for authorities about which the Scottish Office cannot, in all conscience, complain. The anecdotal evidence is that, because of the financial inability to carry out modernisation that is desperately necessary, great injury is being done to the housing stock.
      From the Front Bench, my hon. Friend the Member for East Lothian (Mr. Home Robertson) talked about windows. We all see windows rotting away in our constituencies. The excuse of "no money" is used far more often than it ever was before. Of course, there were always problems, but my anecdotal view is that the problems are becoming greater. What statistical evidence on modernisation problems and the stitch in time saving nine is available to the Minister?
      6 pm
      Mr. Archy Kirkwood: I rise belatedly just to ask one or two questions which are more technical than anything else. I preface my remarks by saying that the list of amendments that the Government have tabled on Report, after the long and arduous Committee stage, will make it difficult for the House properly to digest what the Government are bringing forward.
      Of course I understand that some of the amendments are concessions and, in so far as they are concessions, they are welcome. Some are for the purposes of clarification, but this highlights the claims that were made by hon. Members on both sides of the Committee that the consultation procedure that preceded this piece of legislation was inadequate in time and depth. We are seeing the fruits of that. It makes it difficult for hon. Members on both sides of the House to follow the implications of some parts of the Bill.
      930
      I am referring particularly to new clause 7 and the two related amendments. It is the first time that I have seen the Government amend the long title of a Bill on Report. Surely some standards must be sacred. If the Government are tackling new areas of legislation that are not envisaged in the original Long Title of the Bill, surely it is incumbent upon them to think again and bring forward a new measure. There will be further housing measures. The procedure of consultation on this aspect of the Bill, which was intimated to the Committee only in the latter stages, suggests that the local authorities, which will be left to pick up the pieces of this sort of change, have not been properly consulted.
      Against that background, the first question that I want to ask the Minister is what consultations he has had recently with local authorities about the problems that moving to the new historic cost floor system of limiting discounts will have for them It is incumbent upon the House to consider carefully the Minister's answer to that question when forming its judgment on the new clause.
      I assume that there is a typographical error in subsection (6B), because the word "different" is used twice in the phrase:
      "may make different different provision in relation to different cases".
      Even I do not think that the parliamentary draftsmen would seek to pass that off as anything other than a typographical error. Perhaps the Minister will clarify that.
      An earlier part of the clause uses the phrase:
      "Except where the Secretary of State so determines".
      I have not had time to check this in its entirety, but I do not think that the equivalent provision in the Housing (Scotland) Act 1987, dealing with restriction of discounts, puts that phrase into operation. If that is the case, I shall be happy to be so reassured. However, if that is a new phrase that has crept into the legislation, what does it mean, and in what circumstances will it be used? What exceptions will the Secretary of State consider before he determines the content in the rest of the clause?
      When looking at the new clause 7 provisions side by side with the provisions that they replace, the definition of the word "costs" is important, and we have heard little about that. I am not satisfied that there is legal clarity in terms of what is meant by "costs". Tenants were able to find out quite easily what the discount was, and the formula and calculation could be made and checked by tenants who were prospective purchasers. Using words such as "costs" in the body of the new clause will lead to many difficulties, not just for tenants who are prospective purchasers, but for the local authorities. What does "costs" mean, and where is the definition of it? How will that be decided by individual prospective purchasers when they try to take advantage of the new clause?
      I keep making this point, and I risk being boring on the subject. In the new clause it seems that we are again using the negative procedure. When the Secretary of State brings forward statutory instruments that are subject to annulment, it is sensible on every possible occasion to have them subject to the affirmative procedure, not the negative procedure. The Minister may simply be slavishly following the provisions in the 1987 Act and he may be hiding behind that measure as a precedent. I have heard all that before, but I make the point again. If we are considering the provisions afresh, and if we are starting to introduce words

      931
      such as "costs" that have no legal definition, the orders should be subject to statutory scrutiny under the affirmative procedure.
      I ask for clarification of the phrase—I referred to it earlier when I mentioned the typographical error —which states, inter alia:
      "may make different provision in relation to different cases or circumstances or different areas."
      From memory, I think that the 1987 Act provisions talk about varying cases and varying circumstances in different areas. However, what exactly does that mean? Have there been any cases under the 1987 Act where different provisions have been made in different areas? What is that phrase intended to embrace in terms of the position on the ground?
      Those are important questions. I would risk being boring and incurring the wrath of the House if I went on in a legal vein such as this. However, I simply make the point that I have given four examples of vagueness and difficulties that can be created and can creep into pieces of legislation that are as ill-digested as this clause.
      The Government are wrong to seek to impose this sort of legislation on local authorities, and it makes it difficult for them to work out exactly what provisions they are to make for new and modernised housing stock. If the Minister wants to be even-handed to prospective purchasers, he should make sure that local authorities are indemnified financially for the costs that they will lose over a long period by having to pay the loan charges, and so on.
      I am opposed to the clause, and if Opposition Front Bench Members seek to press it to a Division, I shall have great pleasure in supporting them.
      Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: I want to deal with some of the detailed points that have been raised. The hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire (Mr. Kirkwood) is a highly qualified lawyer and he raised many technical problems. He worked hard in Committee on behalf of Age Concern and other bodies.
      The hon. Gentleman raised the question about the clarification of the phrase relating to different provisions in different areas. That allows for the different time periods to be set for the cost floor in different parts of the country. The hon. Gentleman asked whether the repetition of the word "different" was a printing error. It is, but that will be cleared up later. The hon. Gentleman referred to the Bill's long title. It is not unusual for a Bill's long title to be amended. I cannot readily give a precedent, but I am sure that there are many precedents I could cite if I had time to look them up.
      The White Paper clearly stated that the outstanding debt was to be abolished. We considered a considerable number of representations very thoroughly. As I said earlier, we changed our policy as a result of those representations and that represents a compromise between the interests of local authorities and those of tenants.
      Historic costs are total costs and therefore easy to calculate. The hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire also referred to the negative statutory instrument procedure. That is a regular procedure and is used quite often.
      The hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) raised a number of points on behalf of his constituents. He was correct to state that the Scottish Office has carried out research which has revealed that in the vast majority of
      932
      cases where tenants purchase their homes, they stay in the same houses that they purchased. There is no evidence of a marked change in the turnover. Obviously, research has taken place over many years.
      The hon. Member for Linlithgow also referred to the rate of possible modernisation. West Lothian's allocation is £8 million on the housing revenue account. That is 6 per cent. higher than last year's allocation. The council must determine its own priorities within the framework of the available resources.
      Mr. Dalyell: Does the Scottish Office research reveal that there has been no marked increase in the rate of turnover? If so, that is a very odd conclusion.
      Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: I will have to check upon that. The information that I gave a moment ago was correct: there has been no marked increase. However, I will check that. I said that there has been no evidence of marked change in the turnover. I will check that, and if there is any additional evidence I will reassure the hon. Gentleman.
      Mr. Home Robertson: Is the Minister seriously suggesting that, if there has been a reduction in the Scottish local authorities' housing stock of more than 100,000 since the scheme was initiated, there has been no change in the rate of turnover of re-lets in housing? The Minister must accept that in due course there will be a significant change.
      Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: I said that in the vast majority of cases, once the tenants became owners, they stayed in the same houses.
      The hon. Member for East Lothian (Mr. Home Robertson) referred to public expenditure in Scotland. Taking account of the increased allocations to local authorities announced yesterday, total capital provision for housing through public sector agencies in 1988–89 now amounts to £825 million. That is £44 million, or 5·6 per cent., up on the equivalent figure for 1987–88. I stress to Opposition Members including the hon. Member for Dundee, East (Mr. McAllion) that the amount to be spent on housing next year will increase. I am glad to say that yesterday Dundee, like the other authorities, received a substantial additional allocation. Dundee received an extra allocation of £3,550,000.
      Mr. Home Robertson: Will the Minister acknowledge that the money which he refers to as allocations is not grant from the Government to local authorities, but authority for local authorities to spend their own money?
      Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: The bulk of the money came from extra receipts. Estimates are made by the Scottish Office in co-operation with local authorities, and we take a cautious view of the receipts. The authorities can keep the additional receipts.
      Mr. Bill Walker: Will my hon. Friend confirm that not all the receipts received from the sale of council houses go to the authority which sold the houses? The Scottish Office determines the priorities and gives the money to the area where it judges the priority is greatest. For example, Perth and Kinross district, which has a fine record of selling houses, has not had all the money which it has made from the sales.
      Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: Yes, I can confirm that allocations are made strictly on the basis of need throughout Scotland, in terms of the authorities with the most pressing housing problems.
      With regard to resources, this year the Housing Corporation will receive about £158 million. That is a record figure, and well up on last year's allocation.
      Mr. McAllion: The Minister said that more than an extra £3 million will be allocated to Dundee district council this year. Will he confirm that all that money comes from the receipts from the sale of council houses? Will he also confirm that it comes from the sale of council houses in Dundee?
      6.15 pm
      Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: I would not be able to confirm the latter part of the hon. Gentleman's question without looking carefully at the figures. However, I can confirm that the money comes from receipts.
      The hon. Member for East Lothian referred to the auditors. There will be no problem with the auditors, because the requirement to sell is a legal requirement. He also asked why the position is different in England. There always was a difference in this area, even before we introduced new clause 7. The cost floor in England refers back to 1974, and in Scotland the outstanding debt floor relates back to 1978. The difference has always existed. The system of housing finance is not the same in Scotland as the system prevailing in England.
      Mr. Kirkwood: I want to revert to a reply which the Minister gave me earlier. I think that he said that the phrase
      "different provision in relation to different cases or circumstances or different areas"
      could mean that the time limit could be changed in different areas at the discretion of the Secretary of State. Is that correct?
      Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: If the hon. Gentleman studies what I said in Hansard tomorrow he will see exactly what I said. I will check what I said. I am reasonably certain that it was absolutely accurate.
      The hon. Member for East Lothian referred to the £35,000 house which was sold for £15,000 five years later, with a loss of £20,000. The chances are that the value of the house will have increased at the rate of 10 per cent. each year. It is reasonable to assume that that rate of increase would take the value of the house after five years to more than £55,000. The discounted price would be £22,000, not the £15,000 which was suggested. Therefore, the loss would be restricted.
      Mr. Home Robertson: Is the Minister suggesting that it is Government policy that the value should increase by 10 per cent. a year?
      Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: That is obviously a matter for the market and depends entirely on market circumstances. I cannot determine house prices. However, as a matter of practical realities, house prices tend to rise considerably, and it is fair to take that into account.
      The constituency of the hon. Member for Angus, East (Mr. Welsh) offers a different example of housing problems. I understand that Angus district council is having to sell houses in Montrose at less than the construction price. However, that has little connection
      934
      with the rules applying now or in future in the new clause to the right-to-buy sales. The situation is a direct consequence of house prices in the area generally.
      At the beginning of the month, Angus district council wrote to the Scottish Office seeking guidance on whether my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State might be prepared to make an order under section 62(7) of the Housing (Scotland) Act 1987. The council suggested that that should require the selling price of houses on the Caledonian Station development in Montrose to be sold at not less than the debt outstanding on those houses, even though the market price of the houses had fallen below the debt level.
      At my request, the Department replied in a letter informing the council that my right hon. and learned Friend is unlikely to be willing to make such an order because we do not believe that it would be equitable to expect any tenant exercising the right to buy to pay more than the current market value of the property in question. I should emphasise that under the current rules, and those which will apply if the new clause is agreed, the tenant will have to pay the full market value without discount.
      Mr. Welsh rose—
      Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: I believe that I have covered that point, and I want to get on.
      Mr. Welsh: I want to refer to the general problem of councils paying out less than the outstanding debt and bearing that burden. If that happens, as I fear it will in general, the Minister said that the Government would recompense through the housing support grant system. As the Minister is aware, the minority of councils receive housing support grant now. If the Government's policy continues, no council will receive that grant. Will he give an undertaking that if this becomes a problem for councils, the Government will restore housing support grant to meet that problem?
      Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: I am not going that far. I am making it clear that in the context of this case it would not be fair or proper not to set a figure at the market value, which is what has been arranged. We have arrived at a compromise between the interests of local authorities and tenants. I commend the new clause to the House.
      Question put and agreed to.
      Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

    New Clause 8

      ABOLITION AND CAPITALISATION OF CERTAIN SUBSIDIES AND CONTRIBUTIONS
      '.—(1) No subsidy or contribution shall be made under the following provisions of the Housing (Scotland) Act 1987 (the "superseded provisions")—

      (a) section 200 (slum clearance subsidy);

      (b) section 254 (contributions towards improvement grants, repairs grants and grants for fire escapes);

      (c) section 255 (contributions for improvement of amenities);

      (d) section 296 (contributions towards certain other expenses)

      in respect of any expense or expenditure incurred by a local authority on or after 1st april 1989.
      (2) No claim for subsidy or contribution under any superseded provision in respect of or towards any expense or expenditure incurred by a local authority before 1st April 1989 shall be entertained by the Secretary of State unless—

      (a) it is received by him before 1st October 1989; and

      935

      (b) any information reasonably required by him in relation to any such claim is received by him within two months after the receipt by him of the claim.

      (3) Where two or more periodic payments of a subsidy or contribution under a superseded provision would, apart from this subsection, fall to be made on or after 1st April 1989, these payments shall be capitalised and made as follows—

      (a) if one or more earlier such payments have been made before that date, the Secretary of State shall, instead of making the remaining instalments, pay an amount equal to the appropriate percentage of the relevant capital amount;

      (b) if no earlier such payment has been made before that date, the Secretary of State shall, instead of making any such payments, pay such amount as appears to him to be equal to the appropriate percentage of the relevant expenditure.

      (4) In subsection (3) above—
      "the appropriate percentage", in relation to a relevant capital amount means the percentage specified in or under the superseded provision in relation to the subsidy or contribution to which the capital amount relates and, in relation to a subsidy or contribution, means the percentage specified in or under the superseded provision in relation to that subsidy or contribution;
      "the relevant capital amount", in relation to a subsidy or contribution, means the sum of—

      (a) such amount as the Secretary of State considers would, on the date of his payment under subsection (3)(a) above, be payable by the local authority were they then to repay a loan, repayable over twenty years, taken out by them from the Public Works Loan Board to meet their expense or, as the case may be, expenditure in respect of or towards which the subsidy or contribution was made; and

      (b) any other amount which he considers would be then payable on such repayment of that loan;

      "relevant expenditure", in relation to a subsidy or contribution, means the expense or expenditure in respect of which the subsidy or contribution was made.
      (5) Payment made under subsection (3) above shall be—

      (a) applied in reduction or extinguishment of such debt (whether then payable or not) of the local authority as the Secretary of State thinks fit; or

      (b) made to the local authority; or

      (c) partly so applied and partly so made.

      (6) Payments made to a local authority under subsection (5) above shall be applied by them in the repayment of such debt and in such a manner as the Secretary of State directs.
      (7) Notwithstanding the repeal by this Act of section 254 of the Housing (Scotland) Act 1987, subsection (4) of that section (obligation upon local authority to pay to the Secretary of State sums recovered by them in consequence of breach of conditions of improvement grant or by way of voluntary repayment of such grant) shall continue to have effect in relation to expense incurred under that section by a local authority prior to 1st April 1989, being expense in respect of which contributions were made under that section.
      (8) After paragraph 1 of Schedule 16 to the Housing (Scotland) Act 1987 (which, amongst other things, requires a local authority to carry to the credit of its slum clearance revenue account any slum clearance subsidy payable to them for that year) there shall be inserted the following paragraph—
      "1A. — Paragraph 1(b) above is subject to section [Abolition and capitalisation of certain subsidies and grants] of the Housing (Scotland) Act 1988 (abolition and capitalisation of, amongst others, slum clearance subsidy).".'.— [Lord James Douglas-Hamilton.]
      Brought up, and read the First time.
      Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harold Walker): With this it will be convenient to take Government amendment No. 103.
      Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: The new clause will abolish a number of specific Exchequer subsidies and contributions with effect from 1 April 1989, which will be replaced by Exchequer support through the revenue support grant system. The principle of the clause has been agreed with and is accepted by the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities.
      First, the clause terminates specific Exchequer contributions to expenditure incurred by local authorities on housing improvement and other grants with effect from 1 April 1989. The clause also deals with what is to happen to the future payments to which we are committed for up to 20 years and which result from past awards of these grants and the debt repayments to which they have given rise. Finally, it deals with what is to happen to expenditure incurred by a local authority before 1 April 1989, in respect of which no periodic payment has been made by that date.
      To meet the wishes of COSLA, the clause is drafted in such a way as to enable the Secretary of State to buy out the Government's obligations by capitalising the amount of future payments which would be due to a local authority. The amount payable is to be paid by the Secretary of State to redeem outstanding debt with the Public Works Loan Board, where that exists. But the clause is sufficiently flexible to enable special arrangements to be made for Orkney islands council and Ross and Cromarty district council, which have a total debt to the PWLB of less than the expected capitalised sum. It also enables the amount to be paid by the Secretary of State to include any sum which a local authority might be obliged to pay for the early repayment of loans.
      I should make it clear that the new clause will not at all affect the present arrangements for local authorities giving improvement and other grants to indviduals. Only the way in which the Government fund these grants will be changed under this clause.
      Mr. Home Robertson: I can confirm that the local authorities have no objection to the new clause. They only express the rather optimistic hope that the Secretary of State will exercise his discretion under the new clause reasonably.
      Mr. Kirkwood: Let me raise as part of the principle of capitalisation some of the issues that we discussed in Committee. I refer, in particular, to the capitalisation of the amenity charges that are levied by the Scottish Special Housing Association on tenants who are owner-occupiers of former SSHA-tenanted stock. I sought to raise the matter in Committee and it is relevant to the abolition of capitalisation of certain subsidies and contributions contained in new clause 8.
      I hope that the Minister will not rule out the fact that capitalisation can take place on the amenity charges, which would allow Scottish Homes—as it will become—to enter into an agreement with local authorities to capitalise the charges so that the local authority receives a sensible amount of money which will enable it to maintain the amenity of the common grounds that are currently maintained by the SSHA by levying charges on the residents who were former tenants and are now owner-occupiers. The matter was raised directly in new clause 15. Unfortunately, it was not selected, but I am sure that the Minister will see its relevance to new clause 8.
      Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: With the leave of the House, I shall reply briefly to the hon. Gentleman. He

      937
      raised the matter in Committee and he is aware that there have been discussions with Midlothian district council and the SSHA, and that we have found a way forward. Obviously, we shall be glad if a similar way forward can be found for his council in the discussions that it is now having with the SSHA. We hope that they come to fruition in due course.
      Question put and agreed to.
      Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

    New clause 1

      SCOTTISH HOUSE CONDITION SURVEY
      'The Secretary of State shall, upon coming into force of this Act and every five years thereafter, conduct a Scottish house condition survey in order to establish the current condition of the fabric of local authority, housing association and privately owned housing stock in Scotland; to identify property which is below the tolerable standard; and to assess the likely future requirement to repair and refurbish those homes.
      (2) The Secretary of State shall present to Parliament the results of each Scottish house condition survey within six months of completion of each survey.
      (3) In consultation with local authorities the Secretary of State shall calculate and provide such funds as are necessary to effect all repairs to public sector houses as have been identified as necessary by any Scottish house condition survey.
      (4) The Secretary of State shall have regard to the house condition survey in determining the provision of incentives for the improvement or repair of private sector housing:.— [Mr Home Robertson.]
      Brought up, and read the First time.
      Mr. Home Robertson: 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 2 — Scottish housing needs survey—
      `The Secretary of State shall, upon the coming into force of this Act and every five years thereafter, conduct a survey of Scottish housing needs in order to establish the number of individuals and or families in Scotland who are homeless or who are housed in inadequate or inappropriate homes and he shall take steps to house them adequately and appropriately.'.
      New clause 14—Homeless persons annual return—
      'The Secretary of State shall, after consultation with local authorities, Scottish Homes and any other relevant housing agencies, make an annual return to Parliament showing:

      (a) the number of applicants under the Homeless Persons provisions of the Housing (Scotland) Act 1987;

      (b) the number of successful applicants under the above-mentioned provisions

      (c) the number of successful applicants under the above-mentioned provisions who were subsequently found suitable accommodation.'.

      Amendment No. 126, in clause 1, page 2, line 12, at end insert—
      '(h) establishing a programme with local authorities to share responsibility for dealing with applications received under the Homeless Persons provisions of the Housing (Scotland) Act 1987.'
      Mr. Home Robertson: New clause 1 would require the Secretary of State for Scotland to conduct a house condition survey and provide for remedial action to deal with any problems identified in that survey for the public and private housing sectors in Scotland.
      New clause 2, which we are also debating, would require the Secretary of State for Scotland to conduct a
      938
      survey of housing needs, with particular reference to homelessness, every five years. It would also impose on the Secretary of State a duty to take steps to deal with the problems that would be identified. We are also debating new clause 14 and amendment No. 126 in the name of the hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire (Mr. Kirkwood), which also deal with homelessness.
      The Bill is described as a housing Bill, but it makes no reference to or provision for the most serious underlying problems of housing in Scotland. It is simply a doctrinaire measure to undermine the functions of elected local authorities in Scotland, to destroy the rights of tenants and to promote the interests of private landlords. The new clauses are a serious attempt by the Labour party to persuade the House of Commons to incorporate in the Bill a recognition of the condition of Scotland's housing stock and housing needs.
      At present, the Bill includes a list of seven general functions and 19 specific powers for the new quango that the Government propose to set up in part I—Scottish Homes—but there is no reference to a duty to survey the condition of Scottish housing or the housing needs of the Scottish people.
      The Minister should be aware of the problem, because I remember being a member of the Select Committee on Scottish Affairs at the same time as he was. That was in the good old days when there was a Select Committee on Scottish Affairs. We looked at the problems of dampness and other conditions of housing in Scotland, and the consensus was that there was a case for establishing a house condition survey in Scotland. However, we are still waiting for something like that to be carried out.
      Let me start with housing needs. Surely the right to decent, secure housing must be one of the most fundamental human rights to be recognised in any civilised nation. However, as we know to our cost, an intolerable number of Scots are being denied that basic human right today. The number of Scots who are becoming homeless each year has risen by over 50 per cent. since the Government came to power.
      The official Scottish Office figure for homelessness for 1987 is 24,196. That was the number of applications accepted by local authorities. However, we understand from Shelter that the real figure may be in excess of 30,000 because a number of local authorities allocate houses to people who may become homeless before they fulfil all the criteria provided for by the Act.
      In addition, we know from statistics furnished by COSLA that 200,000 Scots are stuck on waiting lists waiting for rented housing in Scotland. Scottish Members come face to face with that problem every time we open our mail and conduct surgeries in our constituencies. I fear that, because the Government have so few elected Members from constituencies in Scotland, they may not be genuinely aware of the depth of human misery being experienced by so many people in our nation.
      There are 1,250,000 Scots living in overcrowded accommodation—one quarter of Scotland's population. That is significantly worse than the comparable figures for England and Wales. Indeed, overcrowding is such an inherent problem that the Government have seen fit to devise a tax on overcrowding. Because so many people cannot obtain homes of their own, they cannot become ratepayers. They have to stay in shared accommodation. The Government are evidently so appalled by the fact that those unfortunate people cannot pay their local taxes

      939
      directly because they are denied the opportunity to become householders, that they have devised a poll tax, which is a tax on overcrowding and bad housing conditions. That is the depth to which the Government are prepared to descend.
      The Government's failure or refusal to tackle or recognise the housing crisis that is afflicting people in Scotland is nothing less than a national scandal. The Bill is designed to make things worse by promoting high rents and insecurity for tenants, and it is a cruel insult to thousands of Scots who do not want or comprehend the policies of this minority Government in Scotland.
      The Minister tells us that under the legislation there will be an upsurge in the building of new houses to let by the private sector. He should listen to the private sector. He should read the evidence of the Grieve report in Glasgow, which makes it abundantly clear that it is unlikely that the private sector will be able to respond to the Government's challenge.
      6.30 pm
      The Government should be encouraging local authorities to provide for housing need in the way that they best understand. It would be helpful if the Bill contained some reference to a housing needs survey, which would at least recognise the existence of the mounting tragedy of housing need in Scotland.
      I shall move on to the case for a house condition survey. It is important to put it on record that the Scottish Office is alone among Government Departments responsible for housing in the United Kingdom in refusing to conduct a proper house condition survey. There is a house condition survey in England and Wales, but the Government steadfastly and resolutely refuse to conduct such a survey in Scotland. The Scottish Office administration evidently prefers to remain in ignorance of housing conditions in Scotland. It is rather like the three wise monkeys who see no evil, hear no evil, and speak no evil. However, Ministers in the Scottish Office appear to be evil in regard to people in Scotland.
      On the basis of incomplete returns from local authorities, based on information given to councils rather than on any active survey, the Government are sticking to the fatuous assertion that there are only 55,000 houses in Scotland below the tolerable standard. We know that that figure is inaccurate. We had a long debate on the subject in Committee, but the Minister is determined to continue the daft pretence that there are only 55,000 homes below the tolerable standard in Scotland.
      We are indebted to Glasgow district council, which conducted a scientific survey of housing standards in that city. It identified 44,500 homes as being below the tolerable standard in the city of Glasgow alone. That leaves only 10,500 in the rest of Scotland. If we then look at the figures that the Government like to quote from the returns from local authorities, we discover that a further 4,180 of the houses below the tolerable standard are in the district of Argyll and Bute.
      If we take that district out of the calculation, it appears that in the rest of the nation of Scotland there are only 6,320 homes below the tolerable standard. That is obviously nonsense. The Minister simply wants to conceal the fact that there are many more sub-standard houses in Scotland.
      During an interesting debate on the subject in Committee, it became all too clear that the Minister
      940
      preferred not to know about the grim picture of housing conditions in Scotland. Not only is ignorance bliss for the Scottish Office; it appears to be official Government policy.
      If there was time, I could offer the House a long and disturbing list of estimated figures produced by COSLA and by voluntary agencies such as Shelter, indicating that there are probably 500,000 damp houses in Scotland and that there are probably 250,000 council houses in need of major repairs or refurbishment. I invite the Government to face their responsibilities and conduct a survey so that we can evolve proper policies to deal with the underlying problems of housing in Scotland.
      The Minister saw the evidence with his own eyes when he was a member of the Select Committee on Scottish Affairs in 1983. The Grieve report put before the Government more devastating evidence about the situation in Glasgow. There is a serious problem affecting housing in Scotland. There is a desperate need for investment to improve the standard of housing in Scotland and provide for the needs of people who are homeless or living in overcrowded conditions. Why do the Government not get on with the job of identifying the facts so that we can have a practical debate about housing to deal with the problems?
      Mr. Bill Walker: It is important that we should understand the difference between activity and action. I cannot say whether the hon. Member for East Lothian (Mr. Home Robertson) is right in saying that there are 500,000 damp houses in Scotland, because I do not know. I was a member of the Select Committee that conducted the inquiry into dampness and it was clear that at the beginning of the inquiry local authorities were claiming that there was no problem. It was only as the inquiry developed that local authorities began to accept that there was a problem. At the beginning of the inquiry, local authorities were not prepared to accept that there was a problem, and in some instances it seem that they were oblivious to any problem. Local authorities have been responsible for housing problems for a long time.
      I am not convinced about going through the motions of activity rather than action. I believe that the Opposition's response to the statement earlier this afternoon showed that they are still more interested in activity than action. This afternoon represented action; the proposal represents activity.
      Mr. McAllion: The hon. Member for Tayside, North (Mr. Walker) said that local authorities would not admit there was a problem at the beginning of the Select Committee inquiry. Will he substantiate that claim and name the authorities that would not admit that there was a problem?
      Mr. Walker: The hon. Member may be interested to know that one of those local authorities is Glasgow. It is all clear in the Select Committee report. I know that other members of the Select Committee are present. Indeed, some of the Labour Members on the Select Committee were horrified at what it found. Officials to whom we spoke during the initial stages of the inquiry were trying to tell us that the problem was not of the scale that we discovered it to be. I make that observation only because it seemed that the local authorities, which have had responsibility for many decades, were unaware of the condition of their properties.

      941
      The survey that the hon. Member for East Lothian proposes in the new clause would not change anything. That is why it would be activity rather than action. The problem requires the kind of action that was taken earlier this afternoon—selecting specific areas and dealing with them in a way that will resolve the problem. We should be united about how we deal with that.
      I find it offensive that the hon. Member for East Lothian should think that he knows more about the problems of council housing than Conservative Members. I find it equally offensive that he should talk about overcrowding when some Conservative Members have first-hand experience of overcrowding and know what it means to be one of eight children living in a two-roomed house. That is overcrowding. I could give him more details, but we do not solve these problems by hurling insults at each other. However, I found that abusive tonight and during the debate in Committee. We should be concerned about finding solutions to real problems.
      Mr. Nigel Griffiths: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
      Mr. Walker: I shall give way in a moment.
      The Government acknowledge that there are real problems. They are changing what was done in the past because it did not work. That is why new ways of tackling the problem were announced in the statement this afternoon. The Opposition should be welcoming such proposals, but, again, they were girning and greeting in a way to which we have grown accustomed. The solution to the problems will be found in using resources in the most effective way and by involving local people. That is what the Government are doing.
      I suggest that one of the reasons why county councils' coffers are so devoid of funds is that many decades of artificially low rents have deprived them of millions of pounds which they would have got from the public purse. Housing support in all its various forms, including housing benefit, has been available for many decades, but a low-rents policy artificially depresses the rent value and stops a council receiving public support in the form of housing benefit and the other forms of housing support that existed before housing benefit came into being. That deprives the housing coffers.
      It is a deliberate policy, followed largely by Labour-controlled authorities, which starve themselves of funds that could be used to maintain their stock in a much more habitable condition. That is another indictment of housing management. The Bill will create much better management for national housing resources. The Government should reject the clauses. They are activity, not action.
      Mr. Kirkwood: I rise to speak to new clause 14 and amendment No. 126 that stand in my name. I subscribe entirely to the argument deployed by the hon. Member for East Lothian (Mr. Home Robertson) about the housing needs survey and the house condition survey, both of which are extremely important. However, I shall confine my remarks to homelessness.
      There is no consensus about the scale of homelessness, largely due to disagreement about how the problem should be measured. New clause 14 is a very neutral and anodyne attempt to remedy that problem. The Government regard as homeless only those people who satisfy official statutory
      942
      criteria that are established by the homeless persons provisions in the Housing (Scotland) Act 1987. The Government argue that there was a decrease last year in the number of homeless people, but the figures are still one third higher than they were when they came into office. The Government figures available to me show that in 1985–86 the number of officially homeless persons was 10,906 and that in 1986–87 that number fell to 9,868.
      Pressure groups and local authorities have criticised those criteria; they are suspect and far too restrictive. They exclude many genuinely homeless people from the official statistics, such as married couples living with parents or parents-in-law. Shelter's regular survey of people who apply to be considered as homeless and who are therefore granted priority status for housing allocation purposes shows a steeply worsening trend. Shelter's figures show that, in 1985–86, 26,329 people applied to be classed as homeless and that in 1986–87 there were 31,218 applications. That controverts the figures that were given to me in a written answer on Monday 14 March. The Government gave information about those who had applied to be classed as homeless in each local authority from 1978–79, and it is set out in a table in the Official Report.
      The purpose of new clause 14 is to establish a formal mechanism to allow the true extent of homelessness to become known. Under new clause 14, the number of people who consider themselves homeless and who apply to be granted homeless status by the local authority—such figures are now collected by Shelter but are not kept centrally by the Scottish Office — would be set out. Furthermore, those who succeeded in being classed as homeless—those are the only figures that are now acknowledged by the Scottish Office—would be set out. Finally, those who were found accommodation after having been classed as homeless would be set out and would thereby become known to Parliament.
      The nature of the success or otherwise of the Government's housing policy for the homeless would then be much clearer. At the moment, the homelessness problem is substantially understated, whether deliberately or otherwise. Poor statistics hamper attempts to assess the extent of the problem in Scotland. I ask, therefore, that new clause 14 should be considered in that light.
      6.45 pm
      Amendment No. 126 seeks to establish a programme with local authorities to share responsibility for dealing with applications received under the homeless persons provisions of the 1987 Act. There is no obligation on the new housing agency, Scottish Homes, to concern itself with homelessness. The amendment seeks to remedy that omission. Scottish Homes will probably be the largest landlord in Scotland. The amendment seeks to oblige the new agency to share the responsibility for homelessness.
      Local authorities have an exclusive statutory duty to attend to that problem under the Housing (Scotland) Act 1987. Scottish Homes will be the largest landlord in Scotland and local authorities will be deprived of both resources and stock to tackle the problem of homelessness if many of their tenants transfer their homes to other landlords, as the Government clearly hope and intend. In those circumstances, it would be ludicrous if Scottish Homes did not share the responsibility for housing the homeless.
      Mr. Tom Clarke: I intervene, I hope briefly, to support new clause 1. My hon. Friend the Member for East Lothian (Mr. Home Robertson) made an excellent case for it. Although the case is overwhelming, the Government still resist it.
      Mr. Dennis Canavan: I remember a debate when the Conservative party were in opposition. On that occasion, the Minister was on the same side as me. He called for more action from the then Labour Government to establish a house condition survey. The Minister has the power to do that now, but he sits on his backside and does nothing.
      Mr. Clarke: I accepted my hon. Friend's intervention because I knew that the Minister was listening carefully. He is a very good-natured Minister. He can show great courtesy, which puts to shame most of his colleagues on the Treasury Bench. Therefore, I live in great hope that on this occasion my hon. Friend the Member for Falkirk, West (Mr. Canavan) will not be disappointed. The argument is extremely powerful.
      The hon. Member for Tayside, North (Mr. Walker) has been consistent on each occasion when he has spoken on this matter. The Select Committee on which my hon. Friend the Member for East Lothian, the hon. Member for Tayside, North and I served took evidence that suggested that Scotland should adopt the practice that has been followed in England and Wales for some time. If the hon. Member for Tayside, North believes that the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities and many other organisations that gave evidence to the Select Committee were wrong on that point, I should like him to put forward an argument that would persuade me that the money that has been spent in England and Wales has been spent unwisely.
      The hon. Member for Tayside, North made a splendid point in support of the new clause moved by my hon. Friend the Member for East Lothian when he said that, as he recalled the evidence that was given to the Select Committee, some of the councils were "oblivious" of their conditions. If that is so, it is all the more reason for having a national survey.
      Mr. Bill Walker: The point that I was making was that what the Select Committee achieved by having its inquiry was to make councils aware of the situation. That was one of the really positive effects of that inquiry, which I believe was the Select Committee functioning and operating as it should, which sadly was not always the case. It was a very good inquiry, which did a lot of good and made councils aware of a situation which before the inquiry they were at least suggesting did not exist.
      Mr. Clarke: I find myself again with the hon. Gentleman, in that I agree that it was a good inquiry. It was so good that it made a recommendation to the Government, and the Government tossed it out. Had they accepted even the proposal that we should have a pilot scheme, as recommended by the Committee, my hon. Friend the Minister for East Lothian might not have found it necessary to move this new clause today.
      If there are so many variations in the approach of one local authority as against another—I submit that there are — clearly we ought to be trying to establish a national standard in an attempt to identify the national problems that exist in Scotland and the local implications of those problems.
      944
      I will give an indication of the absolute confusion that reigns on this matter. My hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar), on 8 July 1987, as recorded in Hansard, column 184, put a question about dwellings requiring major repair in 1986 and received a reply from the Secretary of State for Scotland. I will not go into great detail, because an enormous table was provided, but it only adds to the confusion. For example, taking districts neighbouring Monklands district, I find that in Falkirk ther are 14,708 such houses; in Motherwell there are 4,600 and in Strathkelvin there are 1,119.
      I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Strathkelvin and Bearsden (Mr. Galbraith) hopes to catch your eye later, Mr. Deputy Speaker, on very important problems that Strathkelvin experiences in terms of capital, where it was found that the sale of council houses was not the prize that it was offered as being. The same table suggests that in Monklands the score is nil. I thought that I was reading about Albion Rovers! I cannot accept, based on my own local knowledge and on the number of constituents who come to me, that the situation in Monklands can be represented by nil. I do not believe it.
      I do not necessarily criticise the Secretary of State, or the council, because Monklands district council's officials, in responding to the request from the Scottish Office to give this information, may have found their own method of making the calculation, but I believe that, given the problems of dampness which the Committee identified and of which we are all aware, given the problems of overcrowding, which we are discussing today, and given the problem of homelessness, it really is quite unacceptable that we should have information which is nowhere near that available to our hon. Friends who represent English and Welsh constituencies.
      This was the plea even of the Institute of Environmental Health Officers. They did not want, within given local authorities, to take it upon themselves to say what standards should be set and that they therefore should make a judgment in terms of inspection and the efficiency of their own authority. They were hoping that there would be national standards and national provision of information. The small amount of money that the English and Welsh experience has cost—over £1 million, as I understand it, in each case—is a great deal less than the £800 million that COSLA quite rightly demands as necessary to invest in our housing stock. But in the absence of a survey, we shall keep getting the kind of confused reply to which I have referred.
      I end as I began, by explaining that I find it quite astonishing that the Government are being so stubborn. The Secretary of State referred to COSLA, which clearly would support the new clause suggested by my hon. Friend, but the Secretary of State is very selective. Last night, during the exchange on the poll tax, it was said that there was not a single question at COSLA, and that somehow or other left the Secretary of State feeling that he had COSLA's support.
      Whether or not the right hon. and learned Gentleman is selective, the fact is that COSLA, based on the kind of experience for which there is no substitute—that of its own councillors and housing committees dealing day after day with the problems that we are addressing—strongly takes the view that we are making a meal of this in Parliament by not taking our positive decision. When we do so, I hope that we shall do so in terms of my hon. Friend's new clause.
      Mr. Andrew Welsh: These new clauses seek information about and clarification of the reality of Scottish housing conditions and Scottish housing needs and to find out the truth about homelessness nationwide. I should have thought that they would be welcomed by all Members. The solution to any major problem must be preceded by an analysis if it is to be made effectively and efficiently. Housing is no different. It is important to delineate the problem, identify the exact extent and nature of it, and then to gather the necessary resources and apply them in a sensitive way in meeting the needs of people.
      Mr. Bill Walker: Is the hon. Gentleman telling the House that Angus district council does not already know how many dark houses it has, how many people it has on its waiting list and what the problems are in Angus?
      Mr. Welsh: I should be happy to tell the House what a good housing authority Angus is, with a zero rent increase this year and record spending on repairs, maintenance and the modernisation of houses. Angus district council would do exactly what I am suggesting — find out the extent of the problem and apply the resources sensitively to meet the needs of the people—but I am talking about housing survey for the whole of Scotland.
      In Scottish housing we have not even reached that simple first base, and it has taken quite a deal of time for the hon. Member for Tayside, North (Mr. Walker) to figure that out. There is no accurate statement of the extent of Scottish rural and urban housing problems. The reality is not known. The remaining problems can be guessed at from the statistics applied by COSLA and organisations such as Shelter, but enough is known to encourage further and more detailed study of the reality of Scottish housing needs and Scotland's housing stock. Carry out that study and a very important first step will have been taken towards providing a solution to our major national housing problems.
      The Government maintain that local housing authorities already have sufficient information about the condition of housing stock and, in particular, public housing stock. The local authorities disagree, and I am inclined to believe them. Even the Government do not claim that there is enough accurate information about the condition of privately owned houses. The estimates that exist cannot easily be reconciled. For example, the 1981 census recorded 23,400 houses as lacking an indoor toilet, while local authority returns for the same year suggested that the figure might be as high as 70,000.
      With such huge disparities between existing sources of information, surely it is essential that an objective assessment of housing conditions be carried out. A crucial feeling about all existing information is that it fails to provide any assessment of the general level of disrepair in either the public or the private sector.
      In July 1985 an inquiry into British housing, chaired by the Duke of Edinburgh, published a report making considerable use of the English and Welsh house condition surveys. It stated:
      "No comparable information is available for Scotland; we think it should be."
      With an attitude like that, would that the Duke of Edinburgh, rather than a lord, was the Scottish Housing Minister.
      In November 1985, the Department of the Environment conducted an inquiry into the condition of
      946
      local authority housing stock in England, which produced an assessment of the structural condition of English council houses and of factors such as poor heating systems, condensation and insulation, asbestos, security, vandalism and environmental problems, and window and door replacement, so that information is available for England. Why should it not be available and put to use in Scotland? Surely such information is the only basis for any sensible housing policy.
      7 pm
      The means of conducting such a housing survey exists through Scottish local organisations such as COSLA. It has produced a housing information survey kit, adaptable to the needs of local authorities. The means of delivering such a survey are already in place, thanks to local authority initiatives, so it would be easy for the Government to carry out this necessary housing survey if they had the will. It must be national, giving the national picture of what faces the Scottish population. I am under no illusion that such a survey would be the be-all and end-all, but it would give us a snapshot of the reality, and as such it would be an important first step towards examining the problems and getting in the resources to solve them.
      Parliamentary answers tell me that England has had four such surveys and that yet another is planned for 1991. If the Minister's English colleagues believe that such a survey is essential and invested more than £1·5 million on the last house condition survey, why is it not possible for Scotland to have one, given our much worse housing? Three housing surveys have been conducted in Northern Ireland, along with a mini-survey last year — why nothing for Scotland?
      It cannot be for financial reasons, because the Government have told me that it would cost only about £5 million for a Scottish survey. Surely such a small amount is a worthy investment, given that it will form the basis from which to tackle Scotland's housing problem. Where better to use a unified Scottish housing agency than as a basis for such a survey? Would the Minister allow Scottish Homes to carry out the survey, given the small amount involved? If not, why not?
      I know the answer to my questions : such a survey would give an exact picture of the atrocious conditions in which so many of our fellow Scots live, and the Government have no intention of meeting the Scottish housing needs or supplying the resources with which to tackle them. A housing needs and conditions survey should be undertaken, along with a survey of homelessness, as a first step in seriously dealing with Scottish housing problems, but I guess that the Government will once again duck their responsibility and Scotland will be left out on a limb—with no survey, no basic information, and no resources with which to tackle our housing problems.
      Mr. George Galloway: Nothing bears better testimony to the utter cynicism of the Conservative party about Scottish housing than the vast expanses of green on the Conservative benches. I thought for a moment that they were about to grow vaster, but I see that the hon. Membr for Tayside, North (Mr. Walker) is not leaving us. We see precisely two Scottish Conservative Members, yet when the Division Bell rings no doubt their English compatriots will flood in to vote through this attack on Scottish housing, just as they did—
      Mr. Bill Walker: There are only 11 Scottish Labour Members present.
      Mr. Galloway: The hon. Gentleman has proved that he has at least 10 fingers, but there are, as I say, only two Scottish Conservative Members present to deal with this vital issue. The Minister gets paid to sit where he is and would lose his job if he did not, and the hon. Member for Tayside, North is the only Conservative Member not much in demand as a dining companion, so he can sit here at 7.3 pm.
      My point was a serious one. When the Division Bells ring, English Conservatives will flood through the doors, never having seen a Scottish home or a damp house in Scotland, to vote through the legislation which has nothing to do with an attempt to make the critical problems of Scottish housing better and everything to do with lining the pockets of their friends, who they hope they will be able to conjure into the private rented sector when the legislation is passed.
      The Government's cynicism is almost Orwellian. The title of the Bill, Housing (Scotland), and Scottish Homes, which has nothing to do with Scotland and was never voted for by the Scottish people, are evidence of that. Indeed, the concept was decisively rejected by them at the general election. So the Bill's title is an abuse of language and its contents are utterly alien to the Scottish housing scene and have nothing to do with houses, as the next 48 hours will show — and as the 80 hours in Committee showed.
      Nothing shows the Government's cynicism more than their refusal to accept the new clause, which would oblige Scottish Homes to have a national house condition survey. How could anyone go into an enterprise as vast as tackling the problems of Scottish housing without a survey to show how serious the problem was? Much was made in Committee, in the White paper and on Second Reading, of the similarity between Scottish Homes and the Scottish Development Agency. Does anyone seriously believe that the SDA would undertake a vast and important strategic enterprise such as running Scottish housing without first conducting a survey to see what the problems were? Scottish Homes wil be whistling in the dark —deliberately and wilfully so—if it sets about its business without ascertaining the extent of the problem.
      In an earlier intervention, my hon. Friend the Member for Falkirk, West (Mr. Canavan) attempted to flatter the Minister into giving way on this issue, but I could have saved him his breath. We tried that many times in Committee, by reminding the Minister of his previous support for the demand for a national survey. We flattered him by telling him he was the most civilised and gentlemanly of the Tory Ministers—but to no avail.
      Many Conservative Members have given their reasons for resisting our demand. Some of them care about Scottish housing—I include the Minister in this category —but are afraid of such a survey because of the results it would yield. After being studied, the survey would lead to a demand by people of all political persuasions in Scotland for resources, money and energy, which the Thatcherite Government in Scotland are not prepared to put into Scottish housing, the Scottish economy or any other aspect of Scottish life.
      Other Conservative Members do not want the survey because they do not give a damn. Some Members on the Committee were not even Scottish; others were Scottish
      948
      but lived in castles; others were so dry in their Thatcherite philosophy that they almost thought it was a crime that people should depend on the public sector for housing in the first place. So if their houses were damp, their roofs leaked or the close in which they lived had not been decorated for goodness knows how many years, that was their own fault. If they would only pull themselves up by their boot straps, their problems, according to these Conservative Members, could be solved.
      A house condition survey would illustrate the fact that Governments and local authorities of all political colours labour under misconceptions about the critical problems of Scottish housing. Certainly the Government seriously underestimate the scale of those problems.
      Let us examine the issue of sub-tolerable conditions. We had great fun discussing that in Committee. The Secretary of State thought that there was a different number of sub-tolerable houses in Scotland from the number given by his junior Minister. The Minister gave two different figures within 20 minutes about the number of such houses in Scotland. It all depends on one's definition of tolerable. What is being forced on Scottish tenants as tolerable would certainly not be tolerable for many of us. If there was such a survey, we would find that the number of houses involved was dramatically different.
      It has been said that there are lies, damned lies and statistics. I shall use the example of Glasgow, because of the shortage of time, Mr. Deputy Speaker. According to the Government, there are only 11,000 houses in the city of Glasgow that are below tolerable standards. That would be a joke if it were not so tragic. Glasgow district council, which has, I dare say, every reason to know better than the Government—shame though that may be on the Government — estimates that 44,000 houses are below tolerable standards. That figure is reached after applying a moderate definition of "tolerable". My experience of just 10 months as a Glasgow Member of Parliament is that a hell of a lot of the sub-tolerable houses in Glasgow must be in my constituency, but, when I look around at the constituencies of some of my hon. Friends in Glasgow, I know that that cannot be true.
      Such a survey might also throw light on an issue that is perhaps not so politically contentious, but it is one that I raised in Committee and want to raise again on Report. It relates to obsolete and sub-tolerable wiring and electrical equipment. Members on both sides have correctly made all sorts of noises of concern and consolation when fire tragedies have occurred in many parts of the country. Yet how many of those fires were caused because innumerable houses, perhaps millions of them, in Britain as a whole have ineffective, inefficient or obsolete wiring?
      I shall give, if I may, only the Glasgow statistics. According to Glasgow district council, 45,000 houses in Scotland have obsolete or inadequate electrical wiring, or equipment, and heating. That is a scandal which Scottish Homes would do well to address, but the organisation cannot address the problem unless it knows it exists, and it cannot know that it exists until it carries out a survey to ascertain it.
      The great problem of dampness in Scottish housing is even greater than homelessness, in my opinion. The Scottish Opposition, which is 50 strong, happen to know this because many, if not all, of us represent areas where dampness is endemic. Because there are so few Conservative Members, who in many cases represent

      949
      constituencies where dampness is much less of a problem, I do them the credit of saying that they may not appreciate its seriousness.
      Every week people come to my surgery with children's toys, with coats, or with photographs that demonstrate dampness on an obscene scale. Children are living in houses and sleeping in bedrooms that are giving them bronchial problems and asthma and making them ill. The Government do not even care enought to conduct a national survey of dampness in housing so that they at least know the extent of the problem, even if they do not make any attempt seriously to redress it.
      I hope that the Minister will obey his instincts and agree to set up a national house condition survey. I know that he will not, for he would be sacked if he did.
      7.15 pm
      Mr. John McFall: I shall be brief, but I wish to speak on the important issue of a house condition survey. I put it to the Minister that the lack of a survey points to the Government's indifference to the value of the public debate on the issue during the past nine months.
      The Government had several objectives in the White Paper. They wanted increased home ownership, diversification of choice and tenureship and a major revamping of the peripheral housing estates. The word that was missing from those objectives was "quality". I suggest that quality of housing was absent because the Government are not interested in the quality of homes in Scotland. If the Government were the least bit interested, they would have included a house condition survey in the White Paper, as the new clause demands.
      What are we asking for? Hon. Members have said that Scotland wants the same as England and Wales. How could the Minister possibly undertake a major revamping of Scottish housing, which was mentioned in the White Paper and the consultative document, without thoroughly knowing the problem and having detailed statistics? The least that the Government could do is to set a target, and set it in concrete, so that we know where we are going. The Government have failed to do that because they are not interested in housing in Scotland. That is the only message that could go out from the House.
      The statistics have been gone over in the past few months and I will not repeat them. Experts have estimated that more than £6 billion is required for modernisation and repairs. It is up to the Government to knock down that figure and to come back and prove that that money is not needed. I contend that they cannot do it because they have not investigated the matter sufficiently.
      Homelessness has been mentioned. In my surgeries, like those of other hon. Members, the majority of cases concern housing, notwithstanding the fact that local district councils do their best. Indeed, my district council has undertaken its own housing condition survey and submitted it to the Scottish Office. It requires £110 million over five years. The Scottish Office says that the council can have £20 million over five years. The Scottish Office did not request details about what was wrong with the housing in my constituency. Every utterance of the Government must be rejected because they will not undertake any basic analysis of the problem. Until they do that, we cannot accept their word.
      Mr. Canavan: I rise to support my hon. Friends briefly and, first, to congratulate them on tabling the new clause.
      It is a poor reflection on Conservative Members that only one Scottish Tory Back Bencher is in the Chamber to listen to this very important debate. I hope, therefore, that the Minister will bear in mind the fact that Opposition Members have put forward a very strong case for a survey of housing conditions and needs.
      I hope that the Minister might remember his days as a humble Back Bencher when he made radical statements supporting the needs for the type of survey that is outlined in new clause 1. I remember the hon. Gentleman making great emotional speeches about the sufferings of his council house tenants in West Pilton — the Minister agrees with me—which was in his constituency at that time, although it is no longer. West Pilton is an area of Edinburgh which the Minister claimed at that time was suffering from multiple deprivation. He rightly fought a good fight on behalf of the council house tenants of West Pilton, in the House, in the Scottish Grand Committee and in Scottish Standing Committees dealing with housing legislation.
      The Minister was in opposition then and he could afford to stand up against the then Government and promise the earth to his constituents once he got into office. The hon. Gentleman now has responsibility for housing in Scotland. I know that the appointment was subject to criticism and that unkind remarks were made about him. People talked about his lack of experience in such matters as council housing and spoke about his being one of the last remnants of the Scottish aristocracy. I do not want to repeat those unkind remarks because I know that, despite his aristocratic background, he is a sincere and honest man.
      The Minister is one of the more honourable or at least one of the least dishonourable of the rascals in the Scottish Office ministerial team. Certainly when we compare him with Ministers who have responsibility for such matters as health, education, sport and the arts, we see that, despite his obvious faults and failings, he is a man of some integrity. I am sure that when he replies to the debate he will bear in mind the valid points made by my hon. Friends. I know that he will not be so partisan as to say that merely because one of his own Back Benchers made a contribution, he will, out of party political prejudice, ignore the needs of Scottish council tenants and other tenants. The new clause refers not just to public sector tenants but to those in the private sector.
      New clause 1 says:
      "The Secretary of State shall, upon coming into force of this Act and every five years thereafter, conduct a Scottish house condition survey".
      The five-year period is very important. Some people may think that such a survey should be conducted every 10 years while others may think that housing is such a fast-moving, dynamic matter that there should be a survey every two or three years. My hon. Friends have struck a good balance, because five years is the maximum lifetime of a Parliament so that we could expect a housing survey in the lifetime of each Parliament. Five years is just one year longer than the maximum lifetime of a housing authority, if we confine the meaning of housing authority to directly elected district councils.
      That means that, within the lifetime of each Parliament and probably within the lifetime of each local authority,

      951
      between elections, we can expect a housing survey to take place. My hon. Friends have got the timing just about right.
      What is the purpose of the survey? The new clause says that it is
      "to establish the current condition of the fabric of local authority, housing association and privately owned housing stock".
      Not only the fabric of houses should be surveyed; we should also survey the social conditions that arise because of the state of the fabric. However, I do not want to quibble over that. If the fabric is faulty, that usually leads to miserable social conditions, and action must be taken to remedy such faults. Obviously the problem must first be identified and that is why the need for a survey of the fabric is absolutely essential.
      My hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Hillhead (Mr. Galloway), spoke about the problem of dampness in houses in his constituency. He spoke in moving and graphic terms about the poor people who come to his surgery week after week, month after month. I certainly sympathise with my hon. Friend. I am sure that all hon. Members who represent Scottish constituencies, and particularly Labour Members who represent deprived inner-city areas and other areas in which poor housing conditions still exist, can testify to the great need to eradicate the problems of dampness.
      Less than a decade ago the Minister was speaking in the House and in Committee about the problems of dampness in houses in his constituency. I supported him at that time and all that I want him to do now is to support me. There is no point in saying that local authorities, the Scottish Special Housing Association, the future Scottish Homes and private landlords should each deal with the problems of dampness in their own houses. The Minister knows that local authorities often lack the resources even for a comprehensive survey, never mind the remedial action necessary to deal with the problems once they have been diagnosed.
      Dampness can be a severe problem, causing not just social but severe medical problems. As my hon. Friends have said, mothers sometimes come along with children to our surgeries. They become almost like doctors' surgeries when children are coughing and spluttering because of dampness in the house. We can hear the child wheezing.
      It is impossible to visit every home in one's constituency and to conduct some kind of personal survey, but I have visited many homes because some parents have pleaded with me to come and see the conditions in which they and their families have to live. Sometimes I have had the time to go to view these conditions and it is a heart-rending experience to see such problems in a house that may be less than a decade old. There is something wrong with the architecture or the building or the heating of such houses, or possibly all three factors come into it, when severe problems of dampness or condensation arise. Houses of that age could not by any stretch of the imagination be called old.
      If we had a national survey such as the one outlined in the new clause, at least we would be able to identify the scope of the problem. I hope that we could also identify the root causes and deal with them. I hope that, if the Minister accepts the need for a statutory survey of the sort that my hon. Friends have in mind, he will bear in mind that it is not good enough simply to look at the fabric of
      952
      the houses and carry out a superficial diagnosis. It is essential to ask the tenants about the heating system, for example.
      Local authorities often say that a tenant is using the wrong kind of heating system for his house and that it is contrary to the advice that he has been given by the council. Such tenants often come to me and ask, "How can I possibly heat my house using gas, electricity or whatever system is recommended by the council? Here is my weekly income. I simply cannot afford anything other than a paraffin heater." As we all know, a paraffin heater is disastrous not just in terms of the fire risk, especially when there are young children around who might coup the heater, but because it causes severe condensation.
      If a survey such as that outlined in the new clause were conducted throughout Scotland, we should find that many poor people who are eking out a living on supplementary benefit are being forced, because of economic circumstances, to use paraffin heaters.
      In view of the Minister's experience in West Pilton, perhaps he will tell us whether there are still areas in his constituency in which such problems prevail. Perhaps he will tell us what he intends to do to alleviate the situation for his constituents and for other people. If he says that he does not have as many council house tenants as he used to have, as a result of the boundary changes, I remind him that the new clause also refers to privately owned housing stock in Scotland.
      Tory Members are very good at pointing the finger at the inadequacies of the council housing stock. Ironically, those inadequacies are often caused by the Government's failure to give housing authorities sufficient resources to improve or expand their housing stock. However, the problem is not confined to local authority, Scottish Special Housing Association or other housing association property. The problem cuts across the divide between the public and private sectors.
      7.30 pm
      Unfortunately, even in relatively new houses in the private sector, we find problems of dampness. That may be due to the economic circumstances of the owner-occupiers. They may take on a mortgage to buy a house when both the husband and wife are earning. Then perhaps a family comes along and the woman stops working. The man is then made redundant, so the family finds itself struggling to keep up the mortgage payments. There may be a tendency in such circumstances to cut down on heating costs, so a cycle of dampness and damage to the fabric of the house is established. Perhaps the problem does not exist to the same extent in the private sector, but it certainly exists in much of the older private sector housing stock and in some newer private sector housing.
      New clause 1 states that one of the objects of the survey is
      "to identify property which is below the tolerable standard".
      That is an excellent idea. It is about time that the Government started to look at houses in Scotland that still fall below the tolerable standard and to consider ways of improving the standard. What may have been considered tolerable 10 or 20 years ago may now be considered intolerable. We should never be complacent about housing standards. We should always be considering ways of improving them.

      953
      Perhaps the Minister will give us the most up-to-date figures of the number of houses in both the public and private sectors which fall below the tolerable standard. I refer to the statutory definition of the tolerable standard which appears in the Scottish Development Department's circulars and in statutory instruments.
      It is a terrible indictment of the Government that they have contributed in some respects to a lowering rather than a raising of standards. For example, the building company Barratt indulged in some disgraceful lobbying to try to influence hon. Members in an attempt to lower the building regulations standards. As a result, some people in Scotland live in what has been described as hen-hut accommodation and do not have sufficient room to move around in the house.
      The Tory Government connived with Barratt to lower those standards, despite the fact that building control officers, representing local authorities throughout Scotland and with no political axe to grind, were adamantly opposed to the lowering of those standards.
      I should be interested to know whether the financial link between Barratt and the Tory party had anything to do with the Government's lowering of those standards. Some people in Barratt accommodation are living in property that would previously have been described as intolerable or at least below the standards set down by the building regulations. That is a bad record for the Government. They have flouted professional advice. I do not know what advice they received from their officials at the Scottish Development Department. I have always believed that most civil servants, with a few exceptions, are incorruptible, and I am sure that they would not be over-influenced by Barratt.
      The lobbying appears to have been done at the highest levels of the Conservative party. Barratt obtained the ministerial ear and had the regulations changed. That was a disgraceful episode in the history of housing in Scotland. I shall be interested to know which Tory party members, Tory Members of Parliament and, possibly, Ministers have received hospitality from Barratt and invitations to their time-sharing flats in the Highlands. It is a shoddy business when a private sector company is able to influence the Government unduly in the formulation of Government regulations.
      I did not originally intend to raise that matter, but it came to mind when I saw the statement in new clause 1 about tolerable standards. Part of the object of new clause 1 is
      "to assess the likely future requirement to repair and refurbish those homes."
      In other words, it is not sufficient to conduct a survey and find out what is wrong. We must also obtain an estimate of the resources required to carry out the necessary repairs, refurbishment, modernisation and, in some cases, demolition and rebuilding. Many mistakes have been made by architects and builders.
      Sometimes it is not old houses that need to be demolished. I remember canvassing at a by-election in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Central (Mr. McTaggart). We visited a high block of flats which, I believe, was opened by the Queen not very long ago. I have no doubt that those flats would come within the scope of new clause 1. Only a few people were living
      954
      in them even at that time. Those flats should be demolished and, as I understand it, that is in the process of being done.
      Perhaps the Minister will tell me what, if anything, has been done about a booklet that I came across in the Library and which was produced by the last Labour Government when Hugh Brown was Minister with responsibility for housing at the Scottish Office. An excellent Green Paper was produced in about 1976 and, whether or not one agreed with some of its tentative proposals, it certainly contained a wealth of statistics on housing conditions in Scotland. It was obvious that at least elements of a survey had been carried out. Will the Minister consider upgrading the good factual information which was contained in that excellent Green Paper?
      In 1977 the Scottish Development Department published "Guidance for Local Authorities—Assessing Housing Needs". I do not recall the Tory Government saying when they won the 1979 general election that that document's approach was no longer Government policy or that it was null and void just because there had been a change of Government. In case the Minister does not have that report, its reference number is ISBN 0114914826.
      The report was the result of much hard work by a committee chaired by Mr. C. J. Watson, BA in geography from the centre for urban and regional studies of the university of Birmingham. Most of the others on the committee seemed to have a Scottish background. The report contained more than 100 pages. Can the Minister tell us what has happened in the decade since it was published? Do the Government still hold by the report, or have they updated it? What are the Government's criteria for conducting a survey along the lines set out in new clause 1?
      Subsection (2) of new clause 1 states:
      "The Secretary of State shall present to Parliament the results of each Scottish house condition survey".
      That should go without saying. Unfortunately, with this Government, who do not believe in open democracy, we must spell out the details for them. I congratulate my hon. Friends on doing so in the new clause. We do not want such a survey to lie on the shelves collecting dust in New St. Andrew's house. It should be presented to Parliament and be accessible to all Members.
      I suggest that the Minister should consider breaking down such surveys, not just by local authority area but by constituency, so that we can all see the state of housing in our areas. I am sure that that would equip us better to ask constructive and well-researched questions in Scottish Question Time. I am sure that the Minister would welcome such questions based on these surveys rather than have hon. Members ask him to provide the information that should be available in them.
      Obviously, house condition surveys must be open to parliamentary inspection. I go further and say that such surveys should be debated. Members from down south have been invading debates on Scottish affairs on the Floor of the House and if some hon. Members take exception to too much time being taken up on Scottish affairs, I suggest that we debate the house condition surveys in the Scottish Grand Committee. Of course, that Committee has its limitations because it normally meets for only two and a half hours and, by the time the Front Benchers have had their shilling's worth, there is only enough time for Back Benchers to have a pennyworth each. That means that only two or three Opposition Back

      955
      Benchers can speak. There should be open-ended debate, without a guillotine, either on the Floor of the House or in the Scottish Grand Committee.
      7.45 pm
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I doubt whether this is the appropriate moment to discuss that matter. The hon. Member should address his remarks more directly to the new clause.
      Mr. Canavan: I am referring to subsection (2) of the new clause, which states:
      "The Secretary of State shall present to Parliament the results of each Scottish house condition survey within six months of completion of each survey."
      There are various ways of submitting measures to Parliament. They can be submitted to Parliament as a whole or can be referred to the Scottish Grand Committee. You know, Mr. Deputy Speaker, the great respect I have for the occupants of the Chair and, if it is your wish, I shall proceed to subsection (3) of the new clause — it is important as I am sure you will agree—which states:
      "the Secretary of State shall calculate and provide such funds as are necessary to effect all repairs to public sector houses as have been identified as necessary by any Scottish house condition survey."
      We should not let the Government off the hook. It is a matter not only of identifying the problem but of attempting to solve it. Some local authorities have put great efforts into carrying out a local survey of housing needs and conditions, but they are not able to do all that they would like to remedy the problem, because the Government will not give them the funds to do so.
      My local authority has had a drastic cut in its capital allocation since the Government came to power and has received not a penny in housing support grant in recent years. If Falkirk district council has not had a penny of housing support grant and has suffered a capital allocation cut as well, what hope do council tenants have that repairs will be carried out? Under the new clause, a survey will have to be conducted and local authorities will have to be given enough money to do something about the problems that would be discovered by such a survey.
      My hon. Friends have restricted subsection (3) to cover public sector houses, but in subsection (4) they extend the new clause to cover
      "the improvement or repair of private sector housing."
      Certain statutory minimum requirements have been laid down in terms of private sector housing improvement grants. I should like the Minister to clarify a point. If a house falls below the "tolerable standard", the person who lives in it—whether as an owner-occupier or as a tenant — or the owner is entitled to an improvement grant. This is a mandatory grant, but there are other types of improvement grant that are discretionary. It is up to the local authority to decide what percentage of grant to give.
      My former constituency contained not only part of Falkirk district housing athority but several other housing authorities. As I recall, the practice seemed to vary from one local authority to another. I wonder whether there is perhaps a case for increasing the amount of statutory grant—provided, that is, that local authorities are given adequate resources to implement a raising of the standards.
      I have no doubt that some of my constituents' problems would be identified in a national survey as outlined in new clause 1. At present, they go along to the local housing
      956
      authority to ask for an improvement grant. They are told, "All right. We have to give you an improvement grant to bring your house up to tolerable standards. But you want standards slightly above tolerable standards and we shall not give you a grant for that element." That is a pity. Surely we should not think simply in terms of the minimum standard. I have always said that there should be nothing but the best for the working classes. I am sure that the Minister, as a good aristrocrat, will agree with me that we should be bettering standards all the time rather than contenting ourselves with minimum standards.
      Is not there a case for tightening the definition of tolerable standards and giving local authorities more money to make home improvement grants to bring houses up to those improved tolerable standards, as well as allowing them to exercise more discretion in making grants to people who want to improve above tolerable standards?
      New clause 2 would also provide for a survey, but it refers to needs as well as housing conditions. That is very important, too. Perhaps the Minister does not hold centrally the figures for the number of people on waiting lists. In the past when we have tabled questions — for example, asking the Minister whether he will give us the number of people on housing waiting lists in each local authority area — we have received one of those word-processor replies saying, "Ha, ha. This information is not held centrally." Frankly, that is not good enough. If we had a survey as outlined in new clause 2, we should have access to the information required.
      New clause 2 deals with the identification of housing needs. I suppose that we would need some kind of questionnaire; it would be no use writing to a local authority and asking, "What are the housing needs in your area?" A lot of groundwork would have to be done and people would need to be asked what their needs and wishes were. Like the Minister, I recognise that many people want to buy rather than rent their houses. Unlike the Minister, however, I do not think that the Government are entitled to cut to a minimum—perhaps even reduce to zero —the assistance that they give local authorities to replace the housing stock that they are forcing them to sell off. Perhaps the Government think that they will get cheap popularity by opening a bargain basement to sell council houses at huge discounts, but future generations may be very hostile to them if, as a result of their one-off decision in the late 1970s and 1980s, there is a vast reduction in the amount of public sector housing at a reasonable rent.
      I have always believed that the Government should try to get the balance right. If in a survey under new clause 2 someone expresses a preference for buying a house rather than renting, in the public or private sector, that is fair enough; let us give that person help. We should help first-time home buyers such as young couples, in particular. However, we should never try to minimise the importance of the job that local authorities have to do in continuing and expanding public sector letting. I hope that the Minister will bear that in mind.
      New clause 14 is a Liberal proposal and, as usual, the Liberals are not here. I shall speak in support of the new clause because it seems very reasonable. I do not want to be sectarian and say that just because it is a Liberal proposal Labour Members should not support it. It refers to the homeless persons provisions of the Housing (Scotland) Act 1987. The House will recall that the original homeless persons' legislation emerged from the Lib-Lab

      957
      pact. I was not a supporter of the Lib-Lab pact, but I was certainly a supporter of better provision for homeless persons.
      What has happened since the Act was passed? This Tory Government have refused to give local authorities adequate resources to fulfil their obligations under the Housing (Homeless Persons) Act 1977 and the homeless persons provisions of the Housing (Scotland) Act 1987. I am sure that many other hon. Members have heard constituents who have been on the waiting list for a considerable time—perhaps for years — complain not only that they cannot get a house but that someone else has been jumping the queue under the homeless persons provisions. That has caused a lot of aggro and the resulting antipathy has been misdirected against local councillors, although the fault lies fairly and squarely with the Government and their lack of an effective housing policy.
      Let us examine the alleged queue-jumping. Often, the local authority is looking at a particular case and judging it under the terms of the homeless persons legislation which obliges it to give priority to a homeless person or family. Almost inevitably, those who are already on the waiting list—perhaps initially with more points than the homeless person—feel that they are being penalised and that they will therefore have to wait much longer for the house that should be theirs as of right. This Government do not consider housing to be a basic human right, and the operation of the homeless persons legislation therefore presents increasing difficulties.
      There may be nothing wrong with the legislation itself. I am sure that most hon. Members agree that those who are homeless or threatened with homelessness should be given statutory protection. However, that statutory protection will cause difficulties unless local authorities are given adequate resources to deal more effectively with those on the ordinary waiting list rather than what is sometimes referred to as the homeless persons' list.
      8 pm
      I see a need for new clause 14. Indeed, as I said earlier, the Liberal, Stephen Ross who used to represent the Isle of Man—[Interruption]—no, the Isle of Wight—was instrumental in getting the homeless persons legislation onto the statute book. I believe that the Isle of Wight is now represented by a Tory.
      This is a Liberal new clause, but I support it and I am sure that if he were here, Stephen Ross would support it too, although like many things about the Liberal party the clause is a bit pussy-footed. It states:
      "The Secretary of State shall … make an annual return"
      but that does not mean anything. Where are the Liberal Members? They are not even here to answer the point.
      If the Secretary of State makes an annual return, we can guess what will happen to it. It will gather dust on the shelves of New St. Andrew's house. It is important that some action is taken on that annual return. If we had formulated the new clause—if it had been formulated by the Labour party rather than being a damp squib of a Liberal amendment—we would have beefed it up and stated that more resources should be provided. Of course, the reason why we did not bother to do that is because it can be adequately covered in new clause 1.
      To get back to where I started, new clause 1(3) is very important as it relates to the provision of funds, as is new clause 2, the other Labour new clause, which states:
      958
      "The Secretary of State shall … take steps to house the"—
      individuals or families—
      "adequately and appropriately".
      Although I am not a lawyer, I understand that in a Bill "shall" means "must". I understand that lawyers, like Liberals, are different people and say "shall" as if it was something futuristic and predetermined, but we know that that is not always so. Instead of saying "must", it states "shall". It is a bit of an abuse of the English language, and it is legal jargon, but so be it.
      Finally, amendment No. 126 is also a Liberal amendment and establishes a programme for local authorities to share responsibility for dealing with applications received under the homeless persons provisions of the Housing (Scotland) Act 1987. I am not sure what "sharing responsibility" means, because a local authority has that statutory responsibility at present. I am sure that that means that most of them are not trying to shirk that statutory responsibility, despite the difficulties in taking it on. All that is required is not so much a sharing of responsibility as the Government giving the local authorities sufficient resources to fulfil that responsibility.
      We have had an interesting debate on the three new clauses and one amendment. I apologise to the hon. Member for Tayside, North (Mr. Walker) because, as a result of urgent commitments and problems in my constituency, I missed his speech, but I do not need to read Hansard tomorrow because I could virtually repeat his speech verbatim, as I have heard his housing speech on many previous occasions. With the exception of the hon. Member, every hon. Member who has spoken has been constructively critical of Government policy.
      I repeat that the Under-Secretary has at least some integrity left, unlike some of the other Ministers in the Scottish Office. Therefore, I hope that he will respond constructively, in the same constructive spirit with which the Government policy has been criticised during the debate. I very much look forward to what he has to say.
      Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: I am very glad to respond to the hon. Member for Falkirk, West (Mr. Canavan) and to tell him that yesterday I was able to make an additional allocation to Falkirk of £2 million under the housing revenue account of which he was perhaps —[Interruption.] Well, although the hon. Gentleman is questioning it, that is certainly in the documents before me.
      On the hon. Gentleman's question about below tolerable standards— —[Interruption.] I am speaking to the hon. Gentleman. I wish to answer his speech, which lasted for an hour. The number of below tolerable houses in Scotland has been reduced from 121,000 in 1979 to 55,000. Those are the most recent figures that I can give. They come from the local authorities themselves.
      The handbook to which the hon. Gentleman referred, "Guidance for Local Authorities — Assessing Housing Needs", was published nearly 10 years ago. It shows that even the previous Labour Government acknowledged the need for housing surveys, which I believe are very necessary.
      I am sorry that the hon. Member for Dumbarton (Mr. McFall) is not in his place, but I would advise him that it is our commitment, in the White Paper, to improve the supply and quality of housing. As I have said, the statistics that we use come from the local authorities. There is a dilemma, because a worthwhile survey would cost at least

      959
      £5 million—probably slightly more—and, quite frankly, that sum would modernise 1,500 council houses or provide over 2,000 repair grants. Therefore, I did not feel that it could be justified, for a variety of reasons.
      New clause 1 seeks to impose on central Government responsibilities that are properly those of local authorities. The front-line responsibility for considering the requirements of an area rests with the district or islands council. The authorities have ample powers to carry out surveys of their areas to establish housing conditions. With this in mind, my Department is undertaking a research project on the conduct of local surveys with support from the Institute of housing, the Rowntree Trust, the Scottish Special Housing Association and a number of local authorities. The pilot survey in Nithsdale district has now been completed and we hope to issue guidance to local authorities this summer which will assist them to derive the maximum benefit from any survey work which they may comtemplate.
      As I said during the Standing Committee's consideration of the Bill, we are keeping the possibility of a national house condition survey under review. We are not, as yet, however, convinced of its merits. In particular, it is unlikely that a national survey would yield useful results at below district level unless the sample size was large, and consequently the survey would he expensive. As I have already said, the cost of a national survey—which we estimate to be just over £5 million—would have to come out of the total resources available for housing. Frankly, I did not feel that I would be justified in reducing the increase that has just been made in the allocations to local authorities in Scotland in order to spend more than £5 million for a housing condition survey.
      Incidentally, I advise the hon. Member for East Lothian (Mr. Home Robertson) that Glasgow's housing revenue capital allocation for next year, 1988–89, is now £88 million, which is 6 per cent. on the equivalent allocation for 1987–88. It received an additional £19·5 million yesterday.
      My brief response to new clause 2 is that the Scottish Development Department gathers information about the level of homelessness from local authorities throughout the year on a case return basis. In any event, I cannot agree that it would be appropriate for the Secretary of State to take action to provide housing directly. This is properly the responsibility of local authorities.
      For much the same reasons, I do not believe that new clause 14 is acceptable. I can, of course, appreciate the difficulties and anxieties that occur when people are made homeless or are threatened with homelessness. Indeed, my Department is at present undertaking research into how authorities discharge their duties under the homelessness legislation. The aim of this research is to draw out, to document and in due course to disseminate examples of good practice. The more effectively and sensitively the legislation is applied, the more we can ensure that the distress that people face if they become homeless is kept to a minimum.
      In addition to that research, the Scottish Development Department already collects statistical information from authorities through the year on a case-return basis to determine the extent of the homelessness problem. My Department also monitors the numbers of applications under the homeless persons legislation and the working of the Act generally. I do not believe that a formal requirement to consult relevant housing agencies and to
      960
      make an annual return to Parliament on the level of homelessness would in any way ease the very difficult problems that can arise. We need to build on the existing links between all the agencies involved and to promote improved housing management.
      Finally, let me say a little about amendment No. 126. The current legislation places responsibility for helping homeless people, in my view correctly, on district and islands councils. It is right that councils must consider whether changes are required to their housing allocation policies, and whether they can make better use of their existing stock, in the light of their exercise of that responsibility.
      The problem of homelessness is not simply one of the total accommodation available. Indeed, as I often argued in Committee, there are some 130,000 more houses than households in Scotland. Homelessness is also to an increasing extent a problem of mismatch — with, for example, much accommodation being in the form of family houses, but the trend now being the formation of smaller households.
      If these difficult problems are to be solved, we need good housing management and close co-operation between local authorities and the agencies involved. I do not believe that it is sensible to impose on local authorities a statutory requirement to act in tandem with Scottish Homes and to share responsibility in dealing with homelessness applications. In my view, one body in each area should have a clear duty to take the lead in ensuring that the homeless are found accommodation.
      The Government will certainly look to Scottish Homes to co-operate to the full with local authorities on all matters of mutual interest. In areas where Scottish Homes acts as a landlord, local authorities will of course consider whether houses owned by Scottish Homes are available to house those whom the local authority determines to be in need of accommodation under the homeless persons legislation. There is therefore room for sensible and constructive co-operation between local authorities and Scottish Homes in dealing with people who require that necessary assistance, but I do not believe that this cooperation would be encouraged or enhanced by the teens of the amendment.
      I do not believe that the new clauses and the amendment are acceptable, and I ask the House to reject them.
      Mr. Home Robertson: I wish that the Minister would stop spinning this yarn about housing capital allocations and suggesting that the Government are giving local authorities money to do the job. That sort of remark simply aggravates people such as my hon. Friend the Member for Falkirk, West (Mr. Canavan). The Minister should come clean about what is going on.
      As for all the mealy-mouthed stuff about homelessness, statistics and a mismatch between available and overcrowded houses, homelessness is not a matter of statistics or of mismatch. It is a personal disaster to those who are affected by it.
      It has been made abundantly clear in the debate that there is an overwhelming case for proper surveys of housing needs and conditions in Scotland. How can there possibly be a proper investment planning process in Scotland, let alone a proper assessment of housing needs, in the absence of accurate information?

      961
      We do not have adequate housing for our people in Scotland. The Minister knows it, and the House knows it. What we need is a proper, planned programme of investment, and the basis of such a plan must be accurate information. The Minister keeps saying that they are thinking about it, that they might carry out a survey at some time, that they are still thinking about it. The legislation provides the opportunity to lay a duty on the Secretary of State for Scotland to deal with the Scottish housing crisis, and he cannot begin to do that without accurate information.
      We are about to move to a vote. Let me remind English Members, who form the overwhelming majority in the House, that in their country there is a house condition survey so that there can be proper planning of housing investment. All that we are asking is for the same facility to be available to the people of Scotland. I urge my hon. Friends and, indeed, the whole House to support the new clause.
      Question put, That the clause be read a Second time:—
      The House divided: Ayes 174, Noes 243.

      Division No. 237]

      [8.15 pm

      AYES

      Abbott, Ms Diane

      Duffy, A. E. P.

      Adams, Allen (Paisley N)

      Dunnachie, Jimmy

      Allen, Graham

      Eadie, Alexander

      Alton, David

      Evans, John (St Helens N)

      Archer, Rt Hon Peter

      Ewing, Harry (Falkirk E)

      Armstrong, Hilary

      Ewing, Mrs Margaret (Moray)

      Ashley, Rt Hon Jack

      Fearn, Ronald

      Banks, Tony (Newham NW)

      Field, Frank (Birkenhead)

      Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)

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

      Barron, Kevin

      Fisher, Mark

      Benn, Rt Hon Tony

      Flannery, Martin

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

      Flynn, Paul

      Bermingham, Gerald

      Foster, Derek

      Bidwell, Sydney

      Foulkes, George

      Blair, Tony

      Fraser, John

      Bray, Dr Jeremy

      Galbraith, Sam

      Brown, Gordon (D'mline E)

      Galloway, George

      Brown, Nicholas (Newcastle E)

      George, Bruce

      Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)

      Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John

      Buchan, Norman

      Godman, Dr Norman A.

      Buckley, George J.

      Gordon, Mildred

      Caborn, Richard

      Graham, Thomas

      Callaghan, Jim

      Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

      Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

      Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

      Campbell, Ron (Blyth Valley)

      Hardy, Peter

      Campbell-Savours, D. N.

      Heffer, Eric S.

      Canavan, Dennis

      Henderson, Doug

      Carlile, Alex (Mont'g)

      Hinchliffe, David

      Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)

      Hogg, N. (C'nauld & Kilsyth)

      Clay, Bob

      Holland, Stuart

      Clelland, David

      Home Robertson, John

      Clwyd, Mrs Ann

      Hood, Jimmy

      Cohen, Harry

      Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

      Coleman, Donald

      Howells, Geraint

      Cook, Robin (Livingston)

      Hughes, John (Coventry NE)

      Corbett, Robin

      Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

      Corbyn, Jeremy

      Hughes, Roy (Newport E)

      Cousins, Jim

      Hughes, Sean (Knowsley S)

      Cox, Tom

      Illsley, Eric

      Crowther, Stan

      Ingram, Adam

      Cryer, Bob

      Janner, Greville

      Cunliffe, Lawrence

      John, Brynmor

      Dalyell, Tam

      Jones, Barry (Alyn & Deeside)

      Darling, Alistair

      Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

      Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)

      Kilfedder, James

      Dewar, Donald

      Kinnock, Rt Hon Neil

      Dixon, Don

      Kirkwood, Archy

      Doran, Frank

      Lamond, James

      Douglas, Dick

      Leadbitter, Ted

      962

      Lewis, Terry

      Quin, Ms Joyce

      Litherland, Robert

      Randall, Stuart

      Livingstone, Ken

      Redmond, Martin

      Livsey, Richard

      Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn

      Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)

      Reid, Dr John

      Lofthouse, Geoffrey

      Richardson, Jo

      Loyden, Eddie

      Robertson, George

      McAllion, John

      Rogers, Allan

      McAvoy, Thomas

      Rowlands, Ted

      Macdonald, Calum A.

      Ruddock, Joan

      McFall, John

      Salmond, Alex

      McKay, Allen (Barnsley West)

      Sedgemore, Brian

      McLeish, Henry

      Sheerman, Barry

      McNamara, Kevin

      Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

      McTaggart, Bob

      Shore, Rt Hon Peter

      McWilliam, John

      Skinner, Dennis

      Madden, Max

      Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)

      Marek, Dr John

      Steel, Rt Hon David

      Marshall, David (Shettleston)

      Steinberg, Gerry

      Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

      Stott, Roger

      Maxton, John

      Strang, Gavin

      Meacher, Michael

      Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

      Meale, Alan

      Turner, Dennis

      Michael, Alun

      Vaz, Keith

      Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)

      Wall, Pat

      Michie, Mrs Ray (Arg'l & Bute)

      Wallace, James

      Millan, Rt Hon Bruce

      Wardell, Gareth (Gower)

      Mitchell, Austin (G't Grimsby)

      Wareing, Robert N.

      Moonie, Dr Lewis

      Welsh, Andrew (Angus E)

      Morgan, Rhodri

      Welsh, Michael (Doncaster N)

      Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)

      Williams, Rt Hon Alan

      Mullin, Chris

      Williams, Alan W. (Carm'then)

      Murphy, Paul

      Winnick, David

      O'Brien, William

      Wise, Mrs Audrey

      O'Neill, Martin

      Wray, Jimmy

      Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

      Young, David (Bolton SE)

      Patchett, Terry

      Pike, Peter L.

      Tellers for the Ayes:

      Powell, Ray (Ogmore)

      Mrs, Llin Golding and

      Primarolo, Dawn

      Mr. Frank Cook.

      NOES

      Aitken, Jonathan

      Burns, Simon

      Alexander, Richard

      Burt, Alistair

      Alison, Rt Hon Michael

      Butler, Chris

      Allason, Rupert

      Butterfill, John

      Amos, Alan

      Carlisle, John, (Luton N)

      Arbuthnot, James

      Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

      Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

      Carrington, Matthew

      Arnold, Tom (Hazel Grove)

      Carttiss, Michael

      Ashby, David

      Cash, William

      Atkins, Robert

      Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)

      Atkinson, David

      Cormack, Patrick

      Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Valley)

      Currie, Mrs Edwina

      Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)

      Davis, David (Boothferry)

      Baldry, Tony

      Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

      Banks, Robert (Harrogate)

      Dunn, Bob

      Bellingham, Henry

      Durant, Tony

      Bendall, Vivian

      Fairbairn, Nicholas

      Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)

      Fallon, Michael

      Benyon, W.

      Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)

      Bevan, David Gilroy

      Fookes, Miss Janet

      Biffen, Rt Hon John

      Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

      Blackburn, Dr John G.

      Fox, Sir Marcus

      Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter

      Gale, Roger

      Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

      Garel-Jones, Tristan

      Boscawen, Hon Robert

      Gill, Christopher

      Bottomley, Peter

      Glyn, Dr Alan

      Bottomley, Mrs Virginia

      Gow, Ian

      Bowden, A (Brighton K'pto'n)

      Gower, Sir Raymond

      Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)

      Grant, Sir Anthony (CambsSW)

      Bowis, John

      Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

      Boyson, Rt Hon Dr Sir Rhodes

      Greenway, John (Ryedale)

      Braine, Rt Hon Sir Bernard

      Gregory, Conal

      Brandon-Bravo, Martin

      Griffiths, Sir Eldon (Bury St E')

      Brazier, Julian

      Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)

      Bright, Graham

      Grist, Ian

      Browne, John (Winchester)

      Grylls, Michael

      Bruce, Ian (Dorset South)

      Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn

      Buck, Sir Antony

      Hampson, Dr Keith

      963

      Hanley, Jeremy

      Montgomery, Sir Fergus

      Hannam, John

      Morris, M (N'hampton S)

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

      Morrison, Hon Sir Charles

      Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn)

      Morrison, Hon P (Chester)

      Harris, David

      Moss, Malcolm

      Haselhurst, Alan

      Neale, Gerrard

      Hawkins, Christopher

      Nelson, Anthony

      Hayes, Jerry

      Neubert, Michael

      Hayhoe, Rt Hon Sir Barney

      Newton, Rt Hon Tony

      Hayward, Robert

      Nicholls, Patrick

      Heddle, John

      Nicholson, David (Taunton)

      Hicks, Mrs Maureen (Wolv' NE)

      Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)

      Hicks, Robert (Cornwall SE)

      Onslow, Rt Hon Cranley

      Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.

      Oppenheim, Phillip

      Hill, James

      Page, Richard

      Hind, Kenneth

      Patten, John (Oxford W)

      Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)

      Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

      Holt, Richard

      Pawsey, James

      Hordern, Sir Peter

      Porter, David (Waveney)

      Howard, Michael

      Powell, William (Corby)

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

      Price, Sir David

      Howarth, G. (Cannock & B'wd)

      Raffan, Keith

      Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)

      Raison, Rt Hon Timothy

      Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk)

      Rathbone, Tim

      Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)

      Redwood, John

      Hunt, David (Wirral W)

      Riddick, Graham

      Hunt, John (Ravensboume)

      Ridley, Rt Hon Nicholas

      Hunter, Andrew

      Ridsdale, Sir Julian

      Irvine, Michael

      Rifkind, Rt Hon Malcolm

      Irving, Charles

      Roberts, Wyn (Conwy)

      Jack, Michael

      Roe, Mrs Marion

      Janman, Tim

      Rossi, Sir Hugh

      Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey

      Rost, Peter

      Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

      Rowe, Andrew

      Jones, Robert B (Herts W)

      Ryder, Richard

      Jopling, Rt Hon Michael

      Sackville, Hon Tom

      Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine

      Sayeed, Jonathan

      King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)

      Shaw, David (Dover)

      Kirkhope, Timothy

      Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)

      Knapman, Roger

      Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')

      Knight, Greg (Derby North)

      Shephard, Mrs G. (Norfolk SW)

      Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston)

      Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

      Knowles, Michael

      Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)

      Knox, David

      Shersby, Michael

      Lamont, Rt Hon Norman

      Skeet, Sir Trevor

      Lang, Ian

      Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

      Latham, Michael

      Soames, Hon Nicholas

      Lawrence, Ivan

      Speller, Tony

      Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)

      Spicer, Sir Jim (Dorset W)

      Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark

      Squire, Robin

      Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)

      Stanbrook, Ivor

      Lilley, Peter

      Steen, Anthony

      Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)

      Stern, Michael

      Lord, Michael

      Stewart, Andy (Sherwood)

      Lyell, Sir Nicholas

      Stradling Thomas, Sir John

      MacKay, Andrew (E Berkshire)

      Sumberg, David

      Maclean, David

      Summerson, Hugo

      McLoughlin, Patrick

      Taylor, Ian (Esher)

      McNair-Wilson, M. (Newbury)

      Taylor, John M (Solihull)

      McNair-Wilson, P. (New Forest)

      Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)

      Madel, David

      Temple-Morris, Peter

      Major, Rt Hon John

      Thompson, D. (Calder Valley)

      Malins, Humfrey

      Tracey, Richard

      Mans, Keith

      Tredinnick, David

      Maples, John

      Trippier, David

      Marland, Paul

      Trotter, Neville

      Marshall, John (Hendon S)

      Twinn, Dr Ian

      Marshall, Michael (Arundel)

      Vaughan, Sir Gerard

      Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

      Waddington, Rt Hon David

      Mates, Michael

      Wakeham, Rt Hon John

      Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick

      Waldegrave, Hon William

      Mellor, David

      Walden, George

      Meyer, Sir Anthony

      Walker, Bill (T'slde North)

      Miller, Hal

      Waller, Gary

      Mills, Iain

      Ward, John

      Miscampbell, Norman

      Warren, Kenneth

      Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

      Watts, John

      Mitchell, David (Hants NW)

      Wells, Bowen

      Moate, Roger

      Wheeler, John

      Monro, Sir Hector

      Whitney, Ray

      964

      Widdecombe, Ann

      Young, Sir George (Acton)

      Wilkinson, John

      Wilshire, David

      Tellers for the Noes

      Wood, Timothy

      Mr. David Lightbown and

      Woodcock, Mike

      Mr. Stephen Dorrell.

      Yeo, Tim

      Question accordingly negatived.

    New Clause 5

      DETERMINING A RENT BY RENT ASSESSMENT COMMITTEE
      '— (1) A tenant may, at any time, irrespective of any existing rent agreement between himself and the landlord refer the rent of his home for assessment by a rent assessment committee and the committee shall determine the rent at which the committee consider that the house might reasonably be let to the individual tenant concerned.
      (2) In making a determination under this section the committee shall have regard to:

      (a) The amount of rent which the tenant can reasonably afford to pay

      (b) The suitability of the house concerned to the requirements of the tenant and any members of his family.'.—[Mr. Home Robertson.]

      Brought up, and read the First time.
      Mr. Home Robertson: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Paul Dean): With this it will be convenient to take the following: New clause 6—
      Prohibition of premiums for assured tenancies—
      'It shall be unlawful for any premium to be charged to a tenant for the creation of an assured tenancy, except that a deposit not exceeding one month's rent may be charged.'.
      New clause 16—Application to rent officer by local authority—
      In Part V of the Rent (Scotland) Act 1984, after section 46 there shall be inserted the following section:
      "Application to Rent Officer by Local Authority.

      46A. — (1) A local authority may apply to the rent officer for consideration of fair rent for any dwelling-house within their area for which a rent may be or has been registered under this Part of this Act.

      (2) If on the application the rent officer is satisfied that the rent, or the highest rent, payable for the dwelling-house under any lease or agreement exceeds what in his opinion is a fair rent, he shall register a rent for the dwelling-house.

      (3) The rent officer may under subsection (2) above take account of the rent payable under any lease or agreement whether or not that exceeds the recoverable rent and whether or not the lease or agreement has taken effect.

      (4) Where a rent for a dwelling-house has been registered under this Part of this Act, no application under this section shall be entertained before the expiry of three years from the relevant date (as defined in section 46(5) of this Act) except on the ground that, since that date, there has been such a change in the condition of the dwelling-house (including the making of any improvement therein), the terms of the tenancy, the quantity, quality or condition of any furniture provided for use under the tenancy (excluding any deterioration in that furniture due to fair wear and tear) or any other circumstances taken into consideration when the rent was registered or confirmed as to make the registered rent no longer a fair rent.

      (5) For the purposes of section 46(5) of this Act, a case where the rent officer does not register a rent on an application under this section shall not be treated as a confirmation of any rent already registered.".'.

      Amendment No. 1, in page 15, line 16, leave out clause 25.
      Mr. Home Robertson: This new clause enables the House to move on from its consideration of the needs for housing and the condition of housing in Scotland to the

      965
      question of the likely spectacular increase in rent levels that will be generated if the Government are successful in imposing the new system of so-called assured tenancies in a supposedly increasing private rented sector in Scotland. Frankly, we doubt whether there will be the spectacular increase in private renting on which the Government are evidently pinning their hopes. However, tenants who are enticed into that form of tenure could find themselves in serious difficulties, and the House should dwell on that for a moment.
      The assured tenancy system is designed to promote the interests of private landlords and to undermine the rights of tenants in Scotland. Nowhere is that more evident than in rents. The concept of fair rents is being jettisoned by the Government in favour of the law of the jungle and a free market approach to rents in the private sector in Scotland. In that context, it is important to emphasise the fact that for the foreseeable future housing in Scotland is likely to be a seller's market, certainly in connection with rented housing. The drastic cutback in local authority new building and the continuing erosion of existing local authority stock is contributing to a slow-down in the turnover of local authority housing in Scotland, whatever the Minister may try to say on the subject. That means that waiting lists are getting longer and things are bound to get worse.
      We know that there are already as many as 200,000 people stuck on housing waiting lists in Scotland. There may be some duplication in that figure, but that is the number of outstanding applications for houses being held by local authorities in Scotland at present. Another connected figure is the depressing and distressing statistic that 1·25 million people in Scotland are living in overcrowded accommodation.
      In circumstances such as those, people are obviously desperate to obtain homes. Anybody is bound to be desperate for a house for himself and his family, and it is not surprising that some people take serious risks in order to secure a house. In that connection, I have noticed a disturbing increase in the number of mortgage defaults, and that is a symptom of the problem.
      There must be a significant number of people who, finding themselves stuck for years on end on waiting lists for district council houses, recognise that one way out of that problem is to get a mortgage and buy a house. They look at the Barratt show houses and are taken in by the soft sell. They manage to secure a mortgage and move into a house. So far, so good. However, it takes only a minor change in circumstances, such as someone losing his job or becoming ill or any other change in a family, to mean that the household can no longer afford to keep up the mortgage repayments. People face the prospect of having their homes repossessed and as a result finding themselves homeless.
      That is happening in Scotland today as a result of the Government's obsession with the promotion of owner-occupation. A significant number of people being allocated local authority houses under the homeless persons procedure at present come from the private sector because they are mortgage defaulters. Other people stuck on the local authority housing waiting lists see that as queue-jumping and that is causing considerable ill-feeling.
      966
      8.30 pm
      Any landlord who can offer a house to let in most areas in Scotland will be able to depend on fierce competition to rent it. There will be a buoyant market for rents as prospective tenants try to outbid each other in the hope of obtaining a home for themselves and their families. That is the kind of market that the Government are trying to stoke up. One does not need to be terribly clever to understand the pressures that that will cause as people who cannot afford high rents find themselves facing high rents and other inducements as they try to secure housing for their families. That situation is wide open to abuse by unscrupulous landlords. It is shamefully irresponsible of the Government to undermine rent controls to the extent proposed in the legislation.
      In passing, it is relevant to refer to the new restrictions on housing benefit which will come into effect next month. They will cause severe difficulties for people who depend on them as a source of cash to pay their rents. I am indebted to Edinburgh city council for making available the results of a survey that it carried out in the city of Edinburgh into the effects of the social security changes on housing benefit. I understand that nearly 2,000 claimants who currently receive housing benefit in Edinburgh will lose that completely. They will receive no housing benefit after the changes come into effect. In addition, another 17,000 claimants will see a significant reduction in the amount of benefit that they receive under the housing benefit system. In total there will be 19,000 losers under the new regime of housing benefit in Edinburgh alone. On average, each claimant will lose £6·42 a week. That gives us an idea of the kind of squeeze that will be imposed on people claiming housing benefit.
      The city of Edinburgh will lose £6·8 million in housing benefit. No doubt there will be similar figures of loss in other cities of Scotland. People must be protected in those circumstances, and there is no sign of that protection in the housing benefit system or in this legislation. On the contrary, the Government are deliberately seeking to stoke up rents in Scotland.
      New clause 5 would enable a tenant to refer the rent to the rent assessment committee, which would be able to consider all relevant circumstances in determining and enforcing a reasonable and affordable rent for the sake of the household and tenant concerned.
      New clause 6 would deal with the likely abuse of the principle of key money or premiums whereby a landlord might require a payment from a prospective tenant to secure a lease. That is a fundamentally corrupt and unjust practice, which most of us hoped had been stamped out of the Scottish housing scene a long time ago. Inevitably, that practice would be encouraged under this pernicious new regime of so-called assured tenancies which the Government are heralding in the legislation. That practice should be outlawed, and we have tabled new clause 6 to give effect to that.
      I am not surprised that the Minister is totally isolated and all alone on the Conservative Benches tonight. We have the spectacle of the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland without a single Conservative Back Bencher in sight. The only other Member on the Government Bench is the indefatigable hon. Member for Penrith and the Border (Mr. Maclean), an Assistant Government Whip, who does not even represent a Scottish constituency. The Minister alone is facing the music for what he is doing to Scottish tenants.

      967
      I am not surprised that the Minister's hon. Friends are embarrassed by the legislation. I invite the Minister to put something on the record about the extent to which he envisages that rents in Scotland will rise as a result of the legislation. Is he prepared to do anything about that, or is he not in the least bit concerned about the hardship that the legislation will inevitably create for many tenants in Scotland?
      Mr. Bruce Milian: I fully support all that my hon. Friend the Member for East Lothian (Mr. Home Robertson) has said about new clauses 5 and 6. I want principally to refer to new clause 16, which is being considered with the other new clauses. New clause 16 stands in my name.
      New clause 16 deals with a long-standing scandal of outrageous rents being levied by landlords on slum properties, many of which are in Glasgow. However, the problem is not restricted to Glasgow. The rents are typically imposed on tenants who are unemployed or otherwise receiving DHSS benefits. The scandalously high rents have therefore been paid straight from the public purse by the DHSS, sometimes direct to the slum landlord.
      The scandal was exposed some years ago by the Glasgow Evening Times in relation to particular landlords in Glasgow, one of whom I shall refer to shortly. At that time some of my colleagues from Glasgow constituencies and I pressed the Government to take action to stop this outrageous behaviour, which was an imposition and hardship on the tenants because they were often subjected to harassment and intimidation. It was also an imposition on the public purse. As I have said, the money to pay for the rents came from the Government through the DHSS.
      At the same time the Government refused to take any action, although the scandal was well documented. There was no excuse on the Government's part for saying that they did not realise the problem. Mr. Michael Ancram dealt with the problem from the Scottish Office at the time.
      The Government refused to take action. They said that the tenants could always apply to the rent officers for a reduction in rents, but that was completely unrealistic, for several reasons. First, there was no financial incentive on the tenants to apply through the fair rent procedure, because they were not paying the rents. The rents were being paid by the DHSS. Incidentally, the rents charged for unemployed tenants were several times higher than those applied by the same landlords to tenants in similar slum properties who were not unemployed. The people receiving the worst rents had no financial incentive to apply to the rent officer for a fair rent, because, I repeat, they were not paying the rent. They were also vulnerable in other ways, and in many cases they were subjected to harassment and intimidation.
      I produced a private Member's Bill in 1985 to do what new clause 16 would do if it was accepted by the House, as I hope it will be. My Bill would have given power to the local authority in those circumstances to apply to the rent officer. It did not take power out of the hands of the tenant, because none of his powers would be reduced. It gave additional power to the local authorities in those cases to apply to the rent officer for the establishment of a fair rent. The local authorities supported that. It granted to Scotland a provision that existed, and as far as I know still exists, in the corresponding rents legislation in England. However, the Government blocked the Bill,
      968
      despite the fact that there was a scandal that was costing the public purse considerable sums of money. That situation has been maintained to the present day.
      I am glad to say that the most notorious landlord involved, a Mr. Barry Solomons, who was responsible for a company called Norman Properties, was eventually caught by the police. He had to be extradited from Florida, where he was living in considerable style on the backs of my unfortunate tenants and at the expense of the DHSS. He was prosecuted, and I am glad to say that just a fortnight or so ago he was convicted and sentenced to four years' imprisonment.
      The verdict and trial vindicated everything that we had been saying right back to 1985, and, indeed, before. This was an outrageous abuse of the system. Reporting the sentence, the Glasgow Herald said:
      "Landlord Barry Solomons made a killing from needy tenants. He rented out slum flats to the penniless and jobless, and made thousands of pounds by fraud."
      He did not only make that money by defrauding the tenants; he was also involved in false claims for mortgages and a number of other criminal activities, for all of which he has now been convicted and sentenced.
      In sentencing Mr. Solomons, Lord Weir said:
      "I hope that lessons have been learned by those who disburse public funds for the benefit of people who cannot support themselves. This case has revealed remarkable gaps in the safeguarding of these funds."
      That is precisely the point that we have made all along and was dealt with in the private Member's Bill that I introduced in 1985 that was blocked by the Government.
      Belatedly, the Government have now noticed that such abuses are going on. However, they seek to deal with them by giving a new power to rent officers in clause 64. I am glad to see that a later amendment seeks to leave out clause 64. This clause gives rent officers powers to determine a rent lower than that being charged where housing benefit or rent allowance is being paid. It does not give powers to reduce the rent; it simply gives powers to reduce the amount of money that goes to the tenant to pay the rent.
      In other words, the abuse has been dealt with, not by getting at the landlords who are responsible for the abuse and are making vast sums of money out of the public purse, but by penalising the tenants even further. Those tenants are either unemployed or on benefit, they are vulnerable and, I repeat, often subject to harassment and intimidation.
      It is scandalous that the Government should be tackling the problem in that way when public money is involved. The Government are constantly lecturing local authorities about not squandering public funds. New clause 16 is, with adjustments, a copy of the equivalent English legislation and would give local authorities the power to step in in those circumstances and have a fair rent determined. This would mean that rents in such cases would be reduced to only a fraction of what they are at the moment. The position will get even worse with assured tenancies. The clause would protect the tenants and the public purse.
      I repeat that it is a scandal that we do not already have such a provision in our legislation. It will be a scandal if the Bill is enacted with the powers contained in clause 64 and the Government fail to tackle the problem at its roots— the problem of unscrupulous and, in some cases, positively crooked landlords abusing and milking the system.
      Mr. Nigel Griffiths: I am grateful to have the opportunity to speak on these new clauses because they go to the heart of the Government's philosophy in producing the Bill— that is, not just to seek an expansion of private landlords, but to back up the worst type of exploitative aspects of private landlords that we have seen in our history in Scotland. The Bill is an extension of landlords' rights as against tenants' rights.
      I should like to cite a number of examples to back up what my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Govan (Mr. Millan) has said. It is clear that the use of the rent assessment committees is a retrograde step. There is no doubt, from the evidence of Edinburgh, Glasgow and other towns and cities in Scotland that the rent assessment committees are far more harsh and impose far higher rents than the rent officers or, indeed, the local authorities or any objective observer would think to be fair.
      8.45 pm
      In Edinburgh, the advice of housing advice agencies, which are non-political, is that a tenant should not go to the rent assessment committee because it is likely that the rent will be increased to an even higher level than it was thought it would be set originally. Therefore, to use the rent assessment committee is a retrograde step, and it is better to stick with the present rent officer system. That would be consolidated by the Government's acceptance of the new clause this evening.
      The crucial point is the ability of people on low incomes, or without independent incomes, to have their rent met via housing benefit. Another terrible aspect of the Bill is the fact that people who have brought up their children in houses with more than one bedroom—perhaps two or three bedrooms—will suddenly be faced, if the Government get their way this evening, with someone coming along and saying that their housing benefit will not cover that size of house because it is too large or, in the words of the Secretary of State, "too luxurious" for them. That is a retrograde step and will penalise many people in Edinburgh, Glasgow and other parts of Scotland.
      The net impact will be to force people on modest and low incomes, who have their housing benefit restricted by the Government's agents, to dip further into their low incomes to preserve the homes that they have. It is outrageous that the Bill should seek to impose and implement that.
      The Government know that the reason why housing benefit, and, indeed, the DHSS social security budget, has rocketed is nothing to do with the fact that the Government have increased the incomes of people on supplementary or housing benefit, but everything to do with the fact that the Government have driven millions of people into poverty and made them dependent on housing and social security benefits. The way to address that problem is to provide a climate for getting people back to work, not to throw them on the dole and then penalise them for that—[Interruption.] I will happily give way to the hon. Member for Tayside, North (Mr. Walker), who is making comments from a sedentary position, but I do not think that they are worth paying attention to.
      It is vital that we drive out the worst type of exploitative landlords, and that is what our new clause seeks to do. It is vital that we do not encourage them, but that is what the Bill does. We must make sure that we do not go back to the Rachmanism of the 1960s, or, indeed, do anything
      970
      to consolidate the position which my right hon. Friend the Member for Govan said exists today in Scotland and the United Kingdom where private landlords, who have thrived under the Government for eight years, can not only exploit their tenants, but, in many cases, get away with it. There is no doubt that the sort of prosecutions about which we have been hearing are rare and too few and far between.
      What we need to do, and what we can do by accepting new clause 16, is to ensure that the powers of local authorities to control landlords and drive out the bad ones are consolidated. The Government need to back up local authorities in driving out private landlords of the worst type, but to protect good and responsible landlords of whom there are a fair number. The problem is that good landlords find it hard to compete with bad landlords. They find it hard to provide good conditions for tenants, to carry out repairs and to levy fair rents when they know that bad landlords can exploit the system to make sure that the weakest and most vulnerable groups in our society are exploited to the full.
      We need the Government to provide some determination to ensure that bad landlords are driven out and that local authorities are provided with the resources, the funds and the staff to monitor landlords so that those who provide good services are consolidated. Sadly, the Bill contains precious little to achieve that aim.
      Mr. Frank Doran: I support the new clause moved by my hon. Friend the Member for East Lothian (Mr. Home Robertson). In Committee, it became evident that the Government had not put a lot of thought into the Bill. Their guiding philosophy was that, by freeing private landlords and thereby removing various benefits which tenants presently enjoy under the Rent (Scotland) Act 1984 and the Housing (Scotland) Act 1987, more housing would come on to the market and the Scottish housing problem, including homelessness and damp houses, would thereby be resolved. As the Committee progressed, it became clear that that was a fallacy.
      The new clauses deal with rent control and the removal from tenants of their present right of access to the rent assessment committee. In Committee, I managed to enumerate a large number of rights that tenants will lose. Tenants will lose the right to a written lease; they will lose the right to attend meetings of local authorities or to send a delegation to that local authority if they are local authority tenants; local authority tenants will lose the right to buy if the Government have their way; they will lose the right to the phasing of rent and to protected or secure tenancies. Tacit relocation, an ancient legal document, was virtually written off in Committee. Tenants will lose protection against eviction; and the right of succession.
      In regard to rent control, a tenant has the right to go to the rent assessment committee, if he or she regards the rent as unfair. If the Bill is enacted, the process of determination of rent will be in the hands of the landlord. The landlord will be able to send a notice to a tenant on one occasion only that he requires an increase in rent. There will be no question of a fair rent; it will simply be an increase in rent.
      It has to be stated as loudly as possible that the Bill is a considerable diminution in the rights of tenants. What incentive will there be for a tenant to move from an existing landlord if all those rights are removed? On the

      971
      question of rent, my hon. Friends have already made the point about the housing benefit system and its impact on housing. In Scotland, we are reaching a crazy position.
      In Committee, I put it firmly to the Minister that the rent assessment officer would be required to do two distinct jobs for the same tenant. In column 1191, I asked the Minister a straight question:
      "It could be read from what the Minister has said that a rent officer may, by applying the criteria in section 48 of the Rent (Scotland) Act 1984 determine a rent for a particular property, but that he could, thereafter, for the purposes of the housing benefit regulations, be required to determine a different rent. Is it possible that two different rental figures could be provided by the same person? From what the Minister says, the criteria will be different."
      The Minister's reply was blunt and stark. He simply replied:
      "The answer is yes." —[Official Report, First Scottish Standing Committee, 1 March 1988; c. 1191.]
      That is a crazy situation. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Govan (Mr. Milian) pointed out, it will impact more seriously on the most vulnerable and poorest sections of society—on those who depend on housing benefit to pay their rent.
      There is a prospect of a gap opening between what the rent officer, wearing one hat, thinks is a fair rent for the property, and, wearing another hat as the agent of the Government in determining a fair rent for housing benefit purposes, determining another rent. In the middle will be tenants living on unemployment benefit, invalid benefit, pensions and supplementary benefit who will have to find the difference. Tenants will find not only that their social security supplementary benefit payments are being reduced in real terms, but that more of that benefit will be clawed away through measures such as those in the Bill.
      It is important to bear in mind just how substantial are the payments from the public purse to the private sector. A huge subsidy of something like £5·4 billion a year is paid in housing benefit. Not all of that goes to the private sector, but £600 million a year is paid in Scotland. Those are huge figures. Not only do we subsidise private landlords to a huge extent, but there is no real benefit to the tenant because the majority of houses in the private sector are at the lower end of the market. They are the least modernised houses in the worst areas, and the tenants are the most exploited.
      Finally, the Secretary of State made a statement today on urban Scotland. The document is entitled "New Life for Urban Scotland." He repeated some of the specious claims that he had made during the debate on Second Reading and in Committee. He said that the housing objectives are encouraging greater individual responsibility for and control over the conditions in which people live. I do not see how the Government can live up to that claim given the number of rights being taken away from tenants, the impositions being placed on tenants and the whole philosophy in which the power base is shifted to the private landlord and the further exploitation of the most vulnerable people in society.
      Mr. Dalyell: I strongly agree with the speech of my right hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Govan (Mr. Millan). It is a pity that the private Member's legislation to which he referred did not reach the statute book.
      I wish to ask the Minister one question. In east Scotland, house prices have rocketed in the past 12 months. Clearly this is either the reason, the excuse, or both, for raising rents. My question is rather simple. What
      972
      work has gone on in the Scottish Office about the likely rise in rents? Before introducing the Bill, the Scottish Office must surely have made some rough estimate about the likely effects. Can the House of Commons have the results of any work that has been done?
      Mr. Dick Douglas: The Under-Secretary of State knows that there are some Ministry of Defence houses in my constituency and that there is a great deal of pressure to push up the rents of those houses. The local authority ought to be able to acquire those houses, which it cannot do now, or they ought to come under a new form of Scottish housing authority. The Under-Secretary has some Ministry of Defence houses in his constituency and he knows that there is a problem.
      These homes are occupied by old people, many of whom are on supplementary benefit or other forms of social security. It is unfair that the rents of a large number of people who have served their nation well should be pushed up. I speak in particular of the village of Crombie. I hope that the Minister will refer to that problem.
      9 pm
      Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: The hon. Member for East Lothian (Mr. Home-Robertson) asked by how much rents will rise. It is impossible to say. The present system has distorted the market, to the detriment, we believe, of tenants' interests. The rent increase will be different in different areas. I expect that in some areas property rents will not rise. Because of the drop in the oil price, market levels in the north-east will be very different from elsewhere in Scotland.
      The hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) asked what studies the Government had made of rent levels. I shall have to inquire, but what I have just said correctly states the position. We cannot estimate exactly how different areas will respond, because it will depend on market levels. If our policy works, and we strongly believe that it will, more accommodation in the private rented sector will become available. That will have a favourable impact on rent levels. A prospective tenant will choose the best available accommodation.
      The right hon. Member for Glasgow, Govan (Mr. Milian) said that it is unrealistic to expect tenants on housing benefit to seek an unregistered rent. That is correct. Consequently, we have inserted clause 64, which provides a new power to control such abuses of housing benefit. It will ensure that excessive rents will not be charged.
      Mr Millan: That is being done at the expense of the tenant. If a rent officer determines that the rent is excessive and fixes a lower rent, why should that not be the rent that is registered and paid to the landlord? Why should the landlord get a scandalously high rent?
      Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: It will operate as a deterrent. It will deter landlords from fixing excessive rents. We are not in favour of controlling rent levels because that would militate against freely negotiated agreements. We are putting forward plans to increase the private rented sector. The hon. Member for Edinburgh, South (Mr. Griffiths) said that good landlords cannot compete with bad landlords. That is because good landlords have been prevented from earning a proper return on their property. The assured tenancy system w11 create more choice in the private rented sector, which will make life much harder for bad landlords.

      973
      I should like to explain the purpose of clause 25 which the Opposition seek to delete from the Bill. It deals with the situation where, at the end of a contractual assured tenancy or during a statutory assured tenancy, the tenant receives from his landlord a notice of a proposed rent increase and refers that notice to the rent assessment committee for adjudication.
      When a tenant refers such a notice to the rent assessment committee, the committee will determine the rent which should apply. The rent so determined will be the rent which, in the committee's opinion, the house could fetch on the open market. The rent determined by the committee will be the rent payable, unless the landlord and tenant agree a different rent—either a higher or a lower one. There may be circumstances in which the two parties will want to settle on a different rent. But the tenant will have the protection that he need not pay any rent above the figure determined by the committee. The determined rent will be payable from the date specified in the landlord's notice, unless the committee specifies a later date, which it will do if it considers that starting the new rent on the landlord's proposed date would cause the tenant undue hardship.
      The Opposition's new clause 5 would introduce a completely different system, although the defective drafting makes it difficult to know exactly how the system would operate in all respects. The two main elements of this are that all tenants, whether assured, protected, secure, or otherwise, would be able to apply for a determination of rent at any time, not only at the end of a contractual tenancy or during a statutory assured tenancy and that rents would be determined according to the tenant's means and the "suitability" of the house, rather than by reference to market rent levels. I cannot accept either of those propositions.
      One of the underlying principles of the assured tenancy regime is that rents will be freely negotiable between landlord and tenant and it follows that whenever a landlord and tenant enter an agreement both parties should be bound by that agreement. When a tenancy agreement comes to its end, it is appropriate that the tenant should then have the right of recourse to the rent assessment committee. The existing clause 25 provides precisely that right. But it would be contrary to the whole purpose of the assured tenancy regime if tenants were to be given an open-ended right to challenge their contracts, and to give the right to all tenants, whether assured or not, would be entirely unacceptable.
      Turning to the question of the criteria for the determination of rents, I quite understand that Opposition Members do not like the idea that a tenant should pay a market rent. That is because they oppose anything that would lead to a regeneration of the private rented sector, which has shrunk enormously in the years since the second world war and is now just over 6 per cent. New clause 5 would be an invitation to tenants deliberately to seek unsuitable accommodation, negotiate a reasonable rent with a landlord and then apply to the rent assessment committee for a determination of a lower rent. That would be unfair on landlords who had negotiated a tenancy agreement in good faith.
      The essence of the Bill is to get an appropriate balance between the rights of tenants and the rights of landlords. We believe that the proposals are most certainly not a
      974
      charter for Rachmanism. They strengthen the protection of all tenants against harassment and illegal eviction. Tenants will have security of tenure very similar to that under existing legislation and there are safeguards built in to prevent the charging of excessive rents above market levels.
      I have listened carefully to the case put forward for new clause 16, but I am convinced that the power that it would give local authorities is unnecessary.
      The main purpose of part II of the Bill is to introduce the new assured tenancies which will steadily replace the regulated tenancies, which are subject to the Rent (Scotland) Act 1984. The provisions in that Act will therefore become transitional, although the period of transition is likely to cover many years. It is therefore right that regulated tenants and their landlords should retain the right to have a rent registered. I do not see a strong argument for extending that power to local authorities.
      Hon. Members argued in Committee that tenants on housing benefit had no incentive to have a rent registered for fear that their rent would be reduced, and it was argued that local authorities would be seen as being neutral and therefore not likely to be affected by these considerations. I have to say that the evidence from England and Wales, where local authorities have this power, is that very little use of it is made in practice. And in Scotland, where local authorities can refer rents of part VII contracts to the rent assessment committee for registration, the number of such referrals is very small indeed. I see no point in legislating to give local authorities a power that will be used little if at all and will become useless as regulated tenancies are phased out.
      New clause 6 seeks to prohibit premiums on short assured tenancies. The arguments in favour of prohibiting premiums on assured tenancies have been fully expounded in Committee and I accept that there is no place for premiums in the present tenancy regime. If landords had been allowed to charge premiums for granting protected tenancies, that would have been used as a device for effectively avoiding the system of rent control.
      That argument does not apply to the new regime, because landlords who grant assured tenancies will not be subject to any statutory rent control and will be able to charge a market rent. So landlords will have no incentive to charge a premium. Indeed, any landlord who did attempt to charge one would probably not succeed in letting his property. I expect that some landlords will want to charge a moderate deposit on letting; that practice is fair enough.
      I said during the Standing Committee's consideration of a similar proposal that the Government would give particular thought to the case for prohibiting premiums on short assured tenancies. It is true that there will be a form of rent control for short assured tenancies, in that anyone with this type of tenancy will be able to seek a determination of rent from the rent assessment committee at any time during the tenancy. However, as the rent assessment committee will make its determinations on the basis of market rents, we believe, on reflection, that landlords will have no greater incentive to charge premiums for this type of tenancy than for assured tenancies. Our current view, therefore, is that there is no need to prohibit premiums under the new regime.
      Mr. Home Robertson: The Minister is an innocent abroad. He is suggesting that there would be no incentive

      975
      for landlords to try to secure premiums—key money—to enable a tenant to take up a tenancy. There will be considerable incentives to do so because they will be able to get away with it. Given that there is a severe shortage of housing to let in Scotland and that there will be fierce competition to take up tenancies whenever they occur, it will be all too easy for landlords to abuse the system in this way.
      It is appalling that the Government are not prepared to take any steps to outlaw this sort of abuse. The Minister implicitly acknowledged that it was an abuse, but he is not prepared to do anything about it. He chides us on the grounds that we are hostile to his proposed redevelopment of the private rented sector, but he is wrong to do so. The Opposition would be happy about any development of the rented sector in Scotland that would meet the need, but the difference between the Minister and us is that we are not prepared to accept that tenants should have to pay any price for that development in the private rented sector.
      We have already established that there is a severe shortage of housing to let in Scotland. We know that there are many desperate people who would be prepared to make serious sacrifices, which they probably cannot really afford, to secure homes for their families. They are likely to be prepared to pay premiums under these desperate circumstances and may be prepared to offer inflated rents. Yet the Minister has the gall to describe them as freely negotiated rents. There is no freedom for people facing the threat of homelessness; that is the point that the Government refuse to tackle.
      We are discussing a distorted and unfair market, and it is deplorable that the Government are introducing legislation that will deprive tenants of any protection from unfair practices by landlords. The reference to freely negotiated rents is absurd.
      My right hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Govan (Mr. Milian) mentioned experience in his constituency, where there has been palpably criminal conduct on the part of one private landlord. I have no doubt that there are perfectly reasonable private sector landlords in Scotland. No one wants to inhibit them, but the Minister has acknowledged on another occasion that there is a criminal element, and my right hon. Friend the Member for Govan made it clear that there has recently been a serious abuse in his constituency.
      In spite of that, the Government are apparently prepared to open the floodgates and allow rents to go sky high, with no recourse to tribunals or controls of any kind. We want to ensure that there is a proper regime of fair rents, as there is now. We are not prepared to see tenants in Scotland making the sacrifices that the Minister seems prepared to impose on them.
      We are extremely alarmed about the difficulties that will confront people claiming housing benefit in these circumstances. I shall quote from the Scottish Development Department's consultation paper on the private rented sector and the implications for housing benefit. Paragraph 13 states:
      "The rent set by the rent officer will not be a maximum rent chargeable for the dwelling. It will be open to the landlord to set the rent at the maximum eligible level, or to charge a higher rent and seek a tenant willing to pay that rent. It will be open to the existing tenant, should he have the means to do so, to make up the difference."
      How on earth can someone on housing benefit make up the difference? That is a formula for forcing these people out of their homes, and the Government are apparently
      976
      prepared to accept it. The formula means more evictions, more insecurity and more homelessness, and the Minister should he ashamed of himself. I urge my hon. Friends to vote for the new clause.
      Question put, That the clause be read a Second time:—
      The House divided: Ayes 175, Noes 230.

      Division No. 238]

      [9.15 pm

      AYES

      Abbott, Ms Diane

      Godman, Dr Norman A.

      Adams, Allen (Paisley N)

      Gordon, Mildred

      Allen, Graham

      Graham, Thomas

      Alton, David

      Hardy, Peter

      Archer, Rt Hon Peter

      Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy

      Ashley, Rt Hon Jack

      Heffer, Eric S.

      Banks, Tony (Newham NW)

      Henderson, Doug

      Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)

      Hinchliffe, David

      Barron, Kevin

      Hogg, N. (C'nauld & Kilsyth)

      Battle, John

      Home Robertson, John

      Benn, Rt Hon Tony

      Hood, Jimmy

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

      Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

      Bermingham, Gerald

      Hughes, John (Coventry NE)

      Bidwell, Sydney

      Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

      Blair, Tony

      Hughes, Roy (Newport E)

      Bray, Dr Jeremy

      Hughes, Sean (Knowsley S)

      Brown, Gordon (D'mline E)

      Illsley, Eric

      Brown, Nicholas (Newcastle E)

      Ingram, Adam

      Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)

      Janner, Greville

      Buchan, Norman

      John, Brynmor

      Buckley, George J.

      Jones, Barry (Alyn & Deeside)

      Caborn, Richard

      Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

      Callaghan, Jim

      Kinnock, Rt Hon Neil

      Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

      Kirkwood, Archy

      Campbell, Ron (Blyth Valley)

      Lamond, James

      Campbell-Savours, D. N.

      Leadbitter, Ted

      Canavan, Dennis

      Lewis, Terry

      Carlile, Alex (Mont'g)

      Litherland, Robert

      Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)

      Livingstone, Ken

      Clay, Bob

      Livsey, Richard

      Clelland, David

      Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)

      Clwyd, Mrs Ann

      Lofthouse, Geoffrey

      Cohen, Harry

      Loyden, Eddie

      Coleman, Donald

      McAllion, John

      Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

      McAvoy, Thomas

      Cook, Robin (Livingston)

      Macdonald, Calum A.

      Corbett, Robin

      McFall, John

      Corbyn, Jeremy

      McKay, Allen (Barnsley West)

      Cox, Tom

      McLeish, Henry

      Crowther, Stan

      McNamara, Kevin

      Cryer, Bob

      McTaggart, Bob

      Cummings, John

      McWilliam, John

      Cunliffe, Lawrence

      Madden, Max

      Dalyell, Tam

      Marek, Dr John

      Darling, Alistair

      Marshall, David (Shettleston)

      Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)

      Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

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

      Maxton, John

      Dewar, Donald

      Meacher, Michael

      Dixon, Don

      Meale, Alan

      Doran, Frank

      Michael, Alun

      Douglas, Dick

      Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)

      Duffy, A. E. P.

      Michie, Mrs Ray (Arg'l & Bute)

      Dunnachie, Jimmy

      Millan, Rt Hon Bruce

      Eadie, Alexander

      Mitchell, Austin (G't Grimsby)

      Eastham, Ken

      Moonie, Dr Lewis

      Evans, John (St Helens N)

      Morgan, Rhodri

      Ewing, Harry (Falkirk E)

      Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)

      Ewing, Mrs Margaret (Moray)

      Mullin, Chris

      Fearn, Ronald

      Murphy, Paul

      Field, Frank (Birkenhead)

      Nellist, Dave

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

      O'Brien, William

      Fisher, Mark

      O'Neill, Martin

      Flannery, Martin

      Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

      Flynn, Paul

      Patchett, Terry

      Foster, Derek

      Pike, Peter L.

      Foulkes, George

      Powell, Ray (Ogmore)

      Galbraith, Sam

      Prescott, John

      Galloway, George

      Primarolo, Dawn

      George, Bruce

      Randall, Stuart

      Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John

      Redmond, Martin

      977

      Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn

      Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

      Reid, Dr John

      Turner, Dennis

      Richardson, Jo

      Vaz, Keith

      Robertson, George

      Wall, Pat

      Robinson, Geoffrey

      Wallace, James

      Rogers, Allan

      Walley, Joan

      Rooker, Jeff

      Wardell, Gareth (Gower)

      Rowlands, Ted

      Wareing, Robert N.

      Ruddock, Joan

      Welsh, Andrew (Angus E)

      Salmond, Alex

      Welsh, Michael (Doncaster N)

      Sheerman, Barry

      Williams, Alan W. (Carm'then)

      Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

      Winnick, David

      Shore, Rt Hon Peter

      Wise, Mrs Audrey

      Skinner, Dennis

      Wray, Jimmy

      Soley, Clive

      Young, David (Bolton SE)

      Spearing, Nigel

      Steel, Rt Hon David

      Tellers for the Ayes:

      Steinberg, Gerry

      Mrs. Llin Golding and

      Stott, Roger

      Mr. Nigel Griffiths.

      Strang, Gavin

      NOES

      Adley, Robert

      Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)

      Alexander, Richard

      Fookes, Miss Janet

      Alison, Rt Hon Michael

      Forman, Nigel

      Allason, Rupert

      Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

      Amess, David

      Fox, Sir Marcus

      Amos, Alan

      Gale, Roger

      Arbuthnot, James

      Garel-Jones, Tristan

      Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

      Gill, Christopher

      Arnold, Tom (Hazel Grove)

      Glyn, Dr Alan

      Ashby, David

      Gower, Sir Raymond

      Atkins, Robert

      Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

      Atkinson, David

      Green way, John (Ryedale)

      Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Valley)

      Gregory, Conal

      Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)

      Griffiths, Sir Eldon (Bury St E')

      Baldry, Tony

      Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)

      Banks, Robert (Harrogate)

      Grist, Ian

      Bellingham, Henry

      Grylls, Michael

      Bendall, Vivian

      Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn

      Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)

      Hanley, Jeremy

      Benyon, W.

      Hannam, John

      Bevan, David Gilroy

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

      Biffen, Rt Hon John

      Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn)

      Blackburn, Dr John G.

      Hawkins, Christopher

      Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter

      Hayes, Jerry

      Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

      Hayhoe, Rt Hon Sir Barney

      Boscawen, Hon Robert

      Hayward, Robert

      Bottomley, Peter

      Heddle, John

      Bottomley, Mrs Virginia

      Hicks, Robert (Cornwall SE)

      Bowden, A (Brighton K'pto'n)

      Hill, James

      Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)

      Hind, Kenneth

      Bowis, John

      Holt, Richard

      Boyson, Rt Hon Dr Sir Rhodes

      Hordern, Sir Peter

      Braine, Rt Hon Sir Bernard

      Howard, Michael

      Brandon-Bravo, Martin

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

      Brazier, Julian

      Howarth, G. (Cannock & B'wd)

      Bright, Graham

      Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)

      Browne, John (Winchester)

      Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk)

      Bruce, Ian (Dorset South)

      Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)

      Buck, Sir Antony

      Hunt, David (Wirral W)

      Burns, Simon

      Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)

      Burt, Alistair

      Hunter, Andrew

      Butler, Chris

      Irvine, Michael

      Butterfill, John

      Irving, Charles

      Carlisle, John, (Luton N)

      Jack, Michael

      Carrington, Matthew

      Janman, Tim

      Carttiss, Michael

      Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey

      Cash, William

      Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

      Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)

      Jones, Robert B (Herts W)

      Cormack, Patrick

      Jopling, Rt Hon Michael

      Couchman, James

      Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine

      Currie, Mrs Edwina

      Kilfedder, James

      Davis, David (Boothferry)

      King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)

      Dorrell, Stephen

      Kirkhope, Timothy

      Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

      Knapman, Roger

      Dunn, Bob

      Knight, Greg (Derby North)

      Durant, Tony

      Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston)

      Fairbairn, Nicholas

      Knowles, Michael

      Fallon, Michael

      Lamont, Rt Hon Norman

      978

      Lang, Ian

      Rowe, Andrew

      Latham, Michael

      Ryder, Richard

      Lawrence, Ivan

      Sackville, Hon Tom

      Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)

      Sainsbury, Hon Tim

      Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark

      Sayeed, Jonathan

      Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)

      Shaw, David (Dover)

      Lightbown, David

      Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)

      Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)

      Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')

      Lord, Michael

      Shephard, Mrs G. (Norfolk SW)

      Lyell, Sir Nicholas

      Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

      MacKay, Andrew (E Berkshire)

      Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)

      McLoughlin, Patrick

      Shersby, Michael

      McNair-Wilson, M. (Newbury)

      Skeet, Sir Trevor

      McNair-Wilson, P. (New Forest)

      Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

      Malins, Humfrey

      Soames, Hon Nicholas

      Mans, Keith

      Speller, Tony

      Maples, John

      Spicer, Sir Jim (Dorset W)

      Marland, Paul

      Stanbrook, Ivor

      Marshall, John (Hendon S)

      Steen, Anthony

      Marshall, Michael (Arundel)

      Stern, Michael

      Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

      Stewart, Andy (Sherwood)

      Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick

      Stradling Thomas, Sir John

      Miller, Hal

      Sumberg, David

      Mills, Iain

      Summerson, Hugo

      Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

      Taylor, Ian (Esher)

      Mitchell, David (Hants NW)

      Taylor, John M (Solihull)

      Moate, Roger

      Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)

      Monro, Sir Hector

      Temple-Morris, Peter

      Montgomery, Sir Fergus

      Thompson, D. (Calder Valley)

      Morris, M (N'hampton S)

      Tracey, Richard

      Morrison, Hon P (Chester)

      Tredinnick, David

      Moss, Malcolm

      Trippier, David

      Neale, Gerrard

      Trotter, Neville

      Nelson, Anthony

      Twinn, Dr Ian

      Neubert, Michael

      Vaughan, Sir Gerard

      Newton, Rt Hon Tony

      Waddington, Rt Hon David

      Nicholls, Patrick

      Wakeham, Rt Hon John

      Nicholson, David (Taunton)

      Waldegrave, Hon William

      Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)

      Walden, George

      Onslow, Rt Hon Cranley

      Walker, Bill (T'side North)

      Oppenheim, Phillip

      Waller, Gary

      Page, Richard

      Ward, John

      Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

      Warren, Kenneth

      Pawsey, James

      Watts, John

      Porter, David (Waveney)

      Wells, Bowen

      Powell, William (Corby)

      Wheeler, John

      Price, Sir David

      Whitney, Ray

      Raffan, Keith

      Widdecombe, Ann

      Raison, Rt Hon Timothy

      Wilkinson, John

      Rathbone, Tim

      Wilshire, David

      Redwood, John

      Wood, Timothy

      Riddick, Graham

      Woodcock, Mike

      Ridley, Rt Hon Nicholas

      Yeo, Tim

      Ridsdale, Sir Julian

      Young, Sir George (Acton)

      Rifkind, Rt Hon Malcolm

      Roberts, Wyn (Conwy)

      Tellers for the Noes:

      Roe, Mrs Marion

      Mr. David Maclean and

      Rossi, Sir Hugh

      Mr. Kenneth Carlisle.

      Rost. Peter

      Question accordingly negatived.

    New clause 9

      RIGHTS OF SCOTTISH SPECIAL HOUSING ASSOCIATION TENANTS
      'It shall be the right of any tenant of the Scottish Special Housing Association whose home is transferred to Scottish Homes under section 3(1) above to decide whether his home shall continue to be vested in Scottish Homes or whether it shall be transferred to

      (a) the district or islands council in whose area it stands; or

      (b) any approved landlord.'.—[Mr. Home Robertson.]

      Brought up, and read the First time.
      Mr. Home Robertson: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
      Mr. Speaker: With this, it will be convenient to take the following: New clause 18—Rights of SSHA tenants—
      `Nothing in this Act shall affect the security of tenure or the conditions of tenancy agreed between the Scottish Special Housing Association and a tenant unless the tenant agrees to any such change and, in the event of disagreement between the tenant and the landlord or future landlord, the tenant shall have the right of appeal to the appropriate rent officer or rent assessment committee.'.
      New clause 19—Transfer of ownership of Scottish Homes houses
      `The transfer to a private landlord or landlords of ownership of any house owned or administered by Scottish Homes shall not take place without the written consent of the tenant of that house, in cases where the tenant had the tenancy of the house at the time of the establishment of Scottish Homes.'.
      Mr. Home Robertson: New clause 9 deals with the rights and prospects of tenants of the Scottish Special Housing Association. The SSHA still has 83,000 houses throughout Scotland and the tenants in those houses are understandably anxious about the Government's plans for them. I should like at the outset to pay tribute to the powerful and effective response that has been brought to bear by SSHA tenants to the threat posed by the Scottish Homes consultation document, which was published by the previous Minister for Housing in Scotland before he lost his seat of Edinburgh, South in May 1987.
      That consultation document referred to the establishment of a landlord division of Scottish Homes as
      "an essentially transitional … holding operation"
      to administer SSHA housing stock until it can be transferred into the private sector or somewhere else, out of sight and out of mind so far as the Government are concerned.
      The consultation paper went on to say that Scottish Homes
      "would not need any programme of new housebuilding".
      Therefore, the Government clearly had it in mind at that stage to phase out the SSHA, or its successor organisation, Scottish Homes, as a provider of public sector rented housing in Scotland. In other words, in the Government's view, the SSHA was an undesirable phenomenon, to be run down and disposed of, regardless of the opinions of the tenants in those 83,000 SSHA houses.
      The tenants concerned were not going to put up with such treatment. We have seen an impressive campaign over the past year on behalf of the SSHA tenants' organisations. There have been media rallies in different parts of Scotland. I was present at a rally in Edinburgh on 27 February and was impressed by the number of tenants and their families who turned out to take part in a march in Prince's street and to fill the Usher hall to make it abundantly clear that they did want to be pushed around by the Government or by anybody else. They wanted to retain their existing tenants' rights and security.
      I suppose that we should acknowledge the fact that the Government have moved slightly on this question since the original consultation document was published. They recognise the overwhelming weight of opinion and, as a result, both the White Paper and the Bill made no specific reference to the Government's objective of disposing of SSHA houses when they are transferred to Scottish Homes. Nevertheless, the implied threat is still there. The Government have made it clear that they do not like the concept of public sector rented housing and that they would rather farm out that housing stock in other directions.
      980
      There was an interesting development in the Shetland Islands in recent months, and no doubt the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Wallace) will want to refer to it, if he catches your eye, Mr. Speaker. The Scottish Special Housing Association is attempting to unload its housing stock in the Shetland Islands on to a housing association in the area, despite the fact that a significant number of the tenants have made it clear that they would prefer either to remain with the SSHA or to have the option of transferring to the Shetland islands council. Those tenants should have been consulted about that proposed transfer of public sector housing stock.
      9.30 pm
      This experience underlines the fears that many of the tenants inevitably feel after the questions that have been raised about their homes in various Government publications during the past year. They are entitled to be suspicious of the Government's motives and of the nominees whom the Government will appoint to the hoard of Scottish Homes. There is no proposal for any direct representation for tenants of Scottish Homes on the boa rd of Scottish Homes. That is a serious shortcoming in the constitution for Scottish Homes as laid down in the Bill. The absence of tenant representation underlines the fears that tenants have expressed.
      Obviously, SSHA tenants do not want to be pushed out of their secure tenancies and the fair rents which they enjoy into new-style, insecure tenancies with sky-high rents under the assured tenancy system which the Government propose. The Government have clearly rejected the case for a ballot for SSHA tenants which we put in Standing Committee—so much for all the Government's slogans about tenants' choice. There is not much sign of tenants' choice for these people. They will not even be represented, let alone given an opportunity to choose whether to stay with the SSHA.
      The new clause will establish a clear-cut right for SSHA tenants to choose whether to stay with Scottish Homes, whether to transfer to their local authority, whether to transfer, if possible, with continuing secure tenants' rights to a housing association or other approved landlord or whether to take the big risk of abandoning all their rights and becoming assured tenants in the private sector. These tenants should have an opportunity to decide what happens to their houses, where they may have been tenants for a long time.
      I cannot believe that many SSHA tenants would take the option of transferring to assured tenancies. My conversations with my constituents who are tenants of the SSHA in various parts of East Lothian reveal that it is likely that a substantial number would like to take the option of transferring to the local authority. Who can blame them? Local authorities in many parts of Scotland have a good record as landlords, whatever the Government may like to say about them. I urge the House positively to consider the suggestion that 83,000 SSHA households should be given a genuine and fair choice about the future of their tenancies and their homes.
      Mr. Bill Walker: I hope that my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State realises that many Conservative Members and my supporters believe that there are already sufficient tenants in the public sector in Scotland. Consequently, we believe that the imbalance that exists should be redressed. The only way to do that is to ensure that there is an increase in the private sector,

      981
      which we are making possible in the Bill, and that those who transfer from the SSHA to Scottish Homes either remain with Scottish Homes or take the other options open to them.
      I should oppose those people becoming tenants of local authority landlords because, contrary to what the hon. Member for East Lothian (Mr. Home Robertson) said, local authorities have not been the world's best landlords. Frequently, they have been very poor landlords. Many of my constituents' complaints have arisen from the fact that the local authority has not behaved as well as it should. I know a number of tenants of the Scottish Special Housing Association, and I would not wish them to be moved into the care of the local authorities in whose areas they live.
      Mr. Home Robertson: What SSHA houses are there in the hon. Gentleman's constituency?
      Mr. Walker: They are not in my constituency. Unlike the hon. Member for East Lothian, I know a lot of people who live in council houses and SSHA houses. Many of them grew up with me and I know their children. That is a fact of life. The hon. Gentleman probably knows far more people who live in castles than I do. I am not being nasty, but it would not surprise me, given his background. He ought not to be surprised, therefore, that I know many more people who live in SSHA houses than he does, and I would be totally opposed to their having a landlord like the local authority inflicted upon them.
      Mr. James Wallace: I welcome the new clause tabled by the hon. Member for East Lothian (Mr. Home Robertson). As I understood the thinking behind the Bill and the White Paper that preceded it, the intention was to extend the scope of choice for tenants. As it now seems likely that Scottish Homes will be created, the new clause would seem admirably suited to allowing an increase in tenants' choice.
      As I understand it, under the new clause an SSHA tenant would be able to opt to transfer to Scottish Homes, to the local housing authority, or to any approved landlord. He cannot, of course, choose the status quo. Once Scottish Homes—a centralising quango—has been created, the tenant will not be able to decide to continue with his landlord of many years' standing, however satisfactory. Nevertheless, as Scottish Homes is to be created, the new clause is useful because it will enable the tenant to have a wider choice than would otherwise be the case.
      It was often said in Committee that the theme of the Bill was "pick a landlord". As my hon. Friend the Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire (Mr. Kirkwood) pointed out, the phrase "choose a tenant" was more appropriate in some respects. The new clause would make the concept of picking a landlord more apt.
      I wonder why the hon. Member for Tayside, North (Mr. Walker) is so opposed to that. He seems to accept that tenants should be allowed to choose Scottish Homes or a private landlord. If so, why should tenants be denied the freedom to choose a municipal landlord? The hon. Gentleman seems to advocate a denial of choice. The Tory party tells us that it is the party of freedom and of individual choice. I cannot understand why Conservative Members are so ready to deny tenants a choice open to them at present—a choice that some of my constituents have welcomed.
      982
      As the hon. Member for East Lothian said, the issue has been highlighted sharply in Shetland in recent months. If events in Shetland are a forerunner of what will happen under Scottish Homes, they are worth studying. The matter was debated in Committee, and I do not propose to go into the history in detail. There has been a background of dispute between Shetland islands council and the SSHA over factoring by the council. Over a number of years it became clear that the SSHA took the view that its tenants in Shetland were isolated from tenants in the rest of its housing stock. The association felt that the tenants were not getting the service that it would have liked.
      Latterly, the SSHA proposed that tenants should be offered the option of becoming tenants of the Hjaltland housing association. The option of transfer to a housing association had been put forward in March 1984, when the tenants were consulted at a public meeting, but the SSHA itself accepted that that option was not particularly well developed at that time.
      When approached in the latter part of 1986, the Hjaltland housing association did not object in principle to the transfer of tenants, but made it plain to the SSHA that if tenants were to be given that option, it was important that sufficient time be given for them to be properly consulted. The sorry episode that subsequently developed does not give one any confidence in the consultation methods that were adopted by the SSHA. One fears that such a lack of consultation would also be the case with its successor body. That episode does not give us any encouragement that the new legislation will be a marker on the road to greater tenant choice.
      A public meeting was arranged in November last year to explain the situation to tenants. It was explained that there would be full consultation with them, which would start immediately. Unfortunately, only three days were set aside by the SSHA, when only 50 of the 142 SSHA tenants in Shetland were visited.
      The SSHA then published comments that were highly critical of the local authority. Following that, the local authority took steps to meet the SSHA to see whether it could resolve the differences. At the meeting some important agreements were reached, including, first, that in any subsequent transfer of a tenancy, an independent source of advice would be available to the tenants; secondly, that all options were to be discussed, including the possibility of transfer to the local authority.
      However, only a week after that a letter was sent out by the SSHA to all tenants. They were not given the option of transferring to the local authority; they were set a deadline. The letter was sent out on 18 December—a week before Christmas and two week before new year. The deadline was 31 January, by which time they had to make up their minds. The letter stated:
      "I would ask you to indicate your views on the transfer of your tenancy to Hjaltland by January 31st 1988 and unlees I hear from you before that date, it will be assumed that you are prepared to support the Association's recommendation that you should become a Hjaltland tenant."
      It is not acceptable that tenants should be put in the position of making a positive reply or else finding that their rights as tenants and their legal status are transferred. That seems wholly inequitable, but it was the manner in which the SSHA went about its business that should be noted. The time given was far too short. It did not allow an adequate opportunity for full and independent advice

      983
      to be taken. In the short time available, Tenants' Participatory Advisory Services came to Shetland and efforts were made by the local authority to consult the tenants.
      Along with others, I approached the SSHA to ask it to extend the period of time within which the tenants were to reply. That was not agreed, although subseqently it has been in practice. There has been some doubt about what response there had been. When the Minister addressed the Committee on 25 February, he suggested that the results had been submitted to his Department, but in a written answer to me last week he refused to disclose what the results were.
      Through correspondence between the chairman of the SSHA and my hon. Friend the Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire I have some indication of the result. Of the 88 tenants who replied, an analysis has shown that 40 per cent. of all SSHA tenants wished to transfer to the Shetland islands council, 12 per cent. wished to remain with the SSHA and 6 per cent. requested more time.
      The letter continued:
      "43 per cent. did not respond and in terms of the Association's letter could be assumed not to object to their tenancies being transferred".
      I have no doubt that the figures are accurate, but it seems a distortion of the truth because 57 per cent. responded, of whom 70 per cent. — I draw that figure to the attention of the hon. Member for Tayside, North—wanted to be transferred to the local authority, 20 per cent. to remain with the SSHA, and 10 per cent. wanted more time for consideration. Clearly, no one positively sought a transfer to the Hjaltland housing association.
      It is unfortunate that the Hjaltland housing association has been dragged into this by the less than satisfactory means used by the SSHA. The Hjaltland housing association is a reputable housing association, with a good record in Shetland, not least in providing housing for single people. It is regrettable that the local image of the association has been tarnished to some extent by an incident for which it can carry no blame whatever.
      9.45 pm
      Why, if the Government are anxious to promote the idea of choice for tenants, is that choice not open to tenants who have said that they wish their tenancies to be transferred to Shetland Islands council? In Committee the Minister said that, under section 12(7) of the Housing (Scotland) Act 1987, the transfers were possible. If they are possible, why should tenants be denied the choice? We want a clear and direct answer to that question.
      It is now being said that tenants can still transfer to the local housing association if they do so before 30 September this year—indeed, before the implementation of the Bill, if it is implemented. What happens if there is a transfer to the housing association before that date, and there is a subsequent transfer within housing stock belonging to the association? Will tenants' rights be subsequently lost—the rights guaranteed to them under the proposed terms of transfer?
      It also seems unfair, although at present possibly quite attractive, to offer tenants, until 30 September, terms better than those that would be given after the Bill comes into operation. That is an indication of how tenants' rights will be restricted, rather than increased, by the legislation.
      Many people would like to know the answers to those questions. Why will tenants not get their first choice, and what will be their rights if they have not exercised their
      984
      transfer rights by 30 September? If the Government cannot give a satisfactory answer, the legislation will be shown up for what some of us suspect it to be: a manoeuvre, in the guise of individual choice, designed in reality to emasculate the public sector—especially local authority housing—and to limit the choice available to tenants.
      I hope that the Government will indeed agree with the principle of wider choice and accept the new clause.
      Mr. Galbraith: I am pleased to rise to support the new clause. I am sure that it comes as a surprise to many that an hon. Member representing a constituency such as mine should speak on local authority housing.
      Mr. McAllion: It is lost on English Members.
      Mr. Galbraith: It is indeed lost on some hon. Members with constituencies south of the border.
      I should explain that my constituency has the highest number of owner-occupiers of any Scottish constituency or, indeed, of the top quarter of the United Kingdom. It is often described as "the leafy suburbs of Bearsden and Lennoxtown, nestling under the hills of the Campsie glens." What is not immediately apparent is that it contains some very serious housing problems.
      The reason for that is that my constituency also contains Strathkelvin, and within that is a district that I share with my hon. Friend the Member for Monklands, West (Mr. Clarke). As a direct consequence of the present Government's policy, housing has been poorly funded over the years, although there is an outstanding housing department and outstanding councillors and local officials are running a highly efficient and effective local authority housing service that responds to everyone's needs.
      It is suspected that that under-funding is not unrelated to Scottish Homes, the SSHA tenants and their right to transfer back to local authority housing. As the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Wallace) said, to deprive them of that right is a basic negation of their democratic rights and freedom of choice. It is a disgraceful piece of legislation and, in time, it will come to be seen as that. There will be a demand that tenants should have the right to transfer back to a local authority. The Government are trying to run down the local authority stock so that the option will not be available to them. That is what is happening in my constituency.
      I see that my hon. Friend the Member for Monklands, West is in the Chamber. As I have said, he shares with me a district in the constituency of Strathkelvin. Strathkelvin wanted £15·5 million capital allocation, but it received only £5 million—one third of what it required. Can the Minister say why Strathkelvin received only £5 million this year?
      Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: According to my list, Strathkelvin received £2,412,000 in the allocation yesterday.
      Mr. Galbraith: Yes, and it is made up to £5 million by the money from council house sales.
      I ask the Minister to go away and consider further the fact that Strathkelvin received only one third of what it required. That is not new. The Government have been running down the finance to Strathkelvin for some time. Housing support grant for 1980–81 was £2·2 million, and it has received nothing in the past four years. The rate fund

      985
      contribution was £200,000—a cut of £2 million in three years. That is what is happening and it is related to Scottish Homes and SSHA tenants.
      Within my constituency, 10 per cent. of the housing stock is lived in by SSHA tenants who will be transferred to Scottish Homes. None of those tenants have been consulted, but they are to be pushed over without any right to transfer back. They will be transferred into a quango. At present they have democratic rights under a first-rate district council and a first-rate housing committee. They will lose all those rights when they are transferred.
      We should look at the quango to which they are being transferred. It has no members, but the Bill says that the Secretary of State shall
      "satisfy himself, before he appoints a person to be a member, that that person will have no such financial or other interest as is likely to affect prejudicially the performance of his functions as a member".
      When the Minister replies, perhaps he will develop that further and say whether Scottish Homes will ever have members who were private landlords at any time. I would like the Minister to answer that specifically.
      In relation to Scottish Homes and the loss of SSHA stock, my constituency is particularly concerned about homelessness. A total of 240 people are homeless in my constituency. That is an increase of 12 per cent. since 1985. The local authority has agency arrangements with the SSHA to help deal with that. Will the Minister tell me what will happen after the formation of Scottish Homes? Will the agency arrangements be maintained? Can he be specific about what will happen in my constituency?
      As a result of this legislation, as the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland said, some of my constituents will lose the choice and the ability to opt for a local authority landlord. Will the Minister accept the clause and give my constituents the choice of transferring into first-rate local authority housing, run democratically for the benefit of all people?
      Mr. Thomas Graham: I am probably unique in the House because I happen to be an SSHA tenant and have been for the past 17 years. I have raised my family in an SSHA house and I am proud of the standard of the house in which I live, which was built specifically for the SSHA.
      I should like to point out to the Minister that for five years I was the chairman of Linwood tenants association and we often went into battle with the SSHA about maintenance, repairs and incredibly high rents. Nevertheless, as a tenant I received an invitation to join in consultations about Scottish Homes. I received the letter in July and was told to have the letter back by August. Everyone is on holiday in Scotland in July. The Minister should have been aware of that, but he did not consider that when consulting the Scottish people on this important point about their homes.
      I am delighted that the Government have the opportunity tonight hopefully to support the new clause. This is the first opportunity that the Government have given or could give to SSHA tenants. Rather than being represented by a quango or unelected body, SSHA tenants will have the opportunity to go to district councils and shelter under the umbrella of elected, responsible and
      986
      democratic councillors who will take care of the issues that concern the tenants. This is a golden opportunity for the Government to support the new clause.
      We are going to create Scottish Homes from the SSHA. The district council will become a wee fly stuck to the wall. I understand what the Government are really pushing for. They want private landlords. I can assure the hon. Member for Tayside, North (Mr. Walker) that if the Government gave my constituents the opportunity to vote in a ballot, they would support going to two very respectable, decent local authorities—Renfrew district and Inverclyde. If the Government want to take up the challenge, they should, and my constituents will respond to it.
      I represent the area with the largest number of SSHA tenants. Some of the largest meetings ever held in my constituency were about Scottish Homes. I can assure the House that my constituents are terrified at the thought of private landlords coming in. Some of the older tenants remember the heyday of the private landlords in Glasgow. Worse still, some of the young people are aware of the speculation that is taking place now by some private sector landlords.
      Statements have appeared recently in the Glasgow Evening Times about one of those private landlords; I will not name him because proceedings are under way. If the Government support the new clause tonight, they will respond to the democratic wishes of my constituents. Clearly the 83,000 tenants would praise you, rather than castigate you. The consultation process was a disgrace. It did not afford the tenants in my area reasonable opportunity to discuss the Government's programme in full. However, I honestly believe that you are not interested, and that all you are interested in—
      Mr. Speaker: Order. Not "you".
      Mr. Graham: I apologise, Mr. Speaker. When I said "you", I meant the Government.
      Clearly, the Government are more interested in dismantling and fragmenting local authority housing—and especially SSHA housing—into the private sector for pure political gain instead of considering the needs of Scottish housing in general. They are not concerned about damp houses or rebuilding for the homeless.
      What will happen to the sensible arrangement operated between the SSHA and Renfrew district council whereby SSHA families are nominated for Renfrew district council houses and Renfrew council house tenants are nominated to become SSHA tenants? If that stops, we shall have the largest problem of homelessness this century. If the private landlords come in, our children will not be able to afford the exorbitant rents that are charged in London.
      Mr. Welsh: I support the new clause. The Bill is supposed to be about freedom of choice, but it is about the very opposite. The Government stopped short when it came to the freedom of tenants to choose the public sector. In other words, the Government are saying that a person is free to choose his landlord as long as it is a private sector landlord. It is like saying that a person can have a car of any colour as long as it is black. That is not freedom of choice—
      It being Ten o'clock, the debate stood adjourned.
      Ordered,
      That, at this day's sitting the Housing (Scotland) Bill may be proceeded with, though opposed, until any hour.—[Mr. Ryder.]
      Question again proposed, That the clause be read a Second time.
      Mr. Welsh: The Government should follow through their own philosophy and give tenants real freedom of choice. The new clause starts to do that by giving SSHA tenants a real choice between the public or private sector. It is up to them to choose whether they prefer the public or private sector, but they should be given that opportunity SSHA tenants have been particularly well-organised and eloquent in putting forward their views on the Government's proposals, and they would be well equipped to make a rational and disciplined choice about their preferred type of tenure.
      The problem with the Bill is that it is all one-way traffic—out of the public into the private sector. The Government are making a mistake in adopting such a lopsided approach to housing tenure. Tenants may only leave the public sector; they may not return to it or join it out of choice. There can be no real freedom of choice for such tenants until a genuine two-way traffic is allowed between the public and private sectors.
      It may come as a surprise to Conservative Members that tenants may see the public sector as desirable. There has been a long and good working relationship between the SSHA and Angus district council, and many SSHA tenants believed that they were in Angus district council houses until, instead of having no rent increases like the tenants of Angus district council houses, they were faced with the shock of whopping increases within the SSHA system. Such tenants may find it desirable to go into an organised, prudent and progressive authority with a well-established housing department. There would be many advantages in making such a choice.
      I shall support the new clause because it will give tenants choice. The Government are making a mistake in not following through the concept of freedom of choice, which is not what the Bill offers.
      Dr. Norman A. Godman: I was pleased to hear my new neighbour, the hon. Member for Renfrew, West and Inverclyde (Mr. Graham), tonight. He will forgive me if I say he is not quite so attractive or elegant as my former neighbour and his predecessor. However, he is certainly making his mark in his constituency and, dare I say it, in my constituency as well.
      I support new clauses 9, 18 and 19—
      Mr. Harry Ewing: My hon. Friend must make a choice. Who does he prefer—Anna McCurley or my hon. Friend the hon. Member for Renfrew, West and Inverclyde (Mr. Graham)?
      Hon. Members: Answer.
      Dr. Godman: I am trying to answer. That depends upon the criteria of selection. On some criteria my hon. Friend would win hands down, but not on others.
      About 45 minutes ago I was informed by 10 Downing street that it is the Prime Minister's intention to visit Greenock tomorrow. In regard to new clause 9, I sincerely hope that the Prime Minister's visit to Greenock, or her stopover in Greenock, is not part of a whistle stop tour of Scotland. I believe that her tour is to include Erskine and Dundee. I have no doubt that the Prime Minister will bring some cheer to the people of my constituency with certain announcements that she will make, or announcements that she will hear tomorrow.
      988
      However, if the right hon. Lady were to meet the SSHA tenants and the district council tenant there would be no cheers for the right hon. Lady. If she were to speak to Helen Pyper and Donald MacDonald, the leading lights of the Inverclyde SSHA tenants association, they would not miss her and hit the wall with their views about the Bill. Along with many other SSHA tenants, they have expressed real fears and deep anxieties about the Bill. I believe that the Prime Minister would get a thorough dressing down about the Bill if she were to speak to my constituents who live in SSHA houses.
      New clause 9 widens the choice for SSHA tenants in a way that would be perfectly reasonable even to Conservative Members. As the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Wallace) said, it provides a degree of freedom of choice which surely must be perfectly acceptable to all SSHA tenants irrespective of political perspective.
      I believe that the legislation as amended by new clause 9 and new clauses 18 and 19 might diminish the deep anxieties of many SSHA tenants in my constituency and elsewhere in Scotland. The evidence which I have to present to the House is anecdotal. It is not based on some rigorous statistical analysis, but I can tell the Secretary of State— not that he will take any notice—that I have been assured by many SSHA tenants that they would prefer their homes to be transferred to the Inverclyde district council.
      In response to the hon. Member for Tayside, North (Mr. Walker) it is readily acknowledged by some Opposition Members that there are black spots in the history of the management of local housing. Many of those black spots were painted by central Government rather than local government, especially in terms of the architecture of housing and the council planning that went into the creation of many schemes in Scotland and elsewhere.
      My hon. Friend the Member for Renfrew, West and Inverclyde was close to the heart of the matter when he said that Inverclyde district council is a reasonable manager of public housing in Greenock and Port Glasgow, and in Kilmacoln, Wemyss Bay and elsewhere in my hon. Friend's constituency. He was also right to speak about the fears of SSHA tenants about the Bill, especially about the formidable prospect of becoming private tenants. All the SSHA tenants with whom I have spoken—I have two more meetings later this week with SSHA tenants associations—have said that they never want to become private tenants.
      The legislation, as amended by this clause and by new clauses 18 and 19, would help to meet some of the anxieties of those fine, decent and honourable people. That is what they are. They should be treated in a fine, decent and honourable way by this Government, but that is wishing for the moon. This Government, especially as represented by the present incumbents of the Scottish Office, give not a damn for the interests of ordinary people.
      The leader of this Government is to visit Greenock tomorrow. For many of my constituents she must surely be, because of this legislation, the social fund and the other changes that are being made to the social security legislation, the most hated, feared and reviled Prime Minister of the 20th century.
      Mr. Douglas: I support new clause 9. I shall also refer to new clauses 18 and 19. I ask the Secretary of State to

      989
      reflect on his proposals. Sometimes he rightly castigates hon. Members for adopting frozen attitudes. All hon. Members have some frozen attitudes; sometimes they are frozen in the 1960s and sometimes they are frozen in the 1970s. We have to consider the challenges to Scotland and to Scottish housing towards the year 2000. I do not know what will happen in the medium term, but it is unlikely that major changes will be made to this legislation. An incoming Labour Government or a Scottish Assembly would want to alter it, but what will not alter dramatically is the pattern of our communities.
      The Secretary of State proposes to allow communities, both large and small, such as Valleyfield, Oakleigh and Blairhall in my constituency, where there is a mixture of local authority, private and SSHA housing, to have a choice. The Secretary of State says that the SSHA houses are to go into Scottish Homes and that local authority houses can also go into Scottish Homes but that houses cannot come out of Scottish Homes. Whose attitude is frozen? The Secretary of State accuses the Opposition of having frozen attitudes, but his attitude is frozen because of his Government's and his personal repugnance of local authority housing ownership and local authority housing stock. That is not a fair assessment of people's needs.
      The Secretary of State argues for a mix of ownership, which I support. There is a remarkable mixture of ownership in Dunfermline; a larger proportion of local authority and SSHA houses than in any other constituency have gone from the public into the private domain. If Scottish Homes is to be created, the Secretary of State should provide flexibility so that tenants are able to choose whether to live in Scottish Homes houses or whether it would be practicable and enhance a sense of community for them to move from Scottish Homes into the local authority sector.
      The other new clauses also refer to the democratic element of choice. There is an implication in the new clauses that these things should not be done unless the tenants' consent is absolutely clear and I think that is fair. I know the difficulties of drafting, and the Secretary of State and those in his Department, with their legal minds, might say that the drafting is wrong, but I would ask him to accept that the intention behind the new clauses is to give some sense that these deals will not be imposed on the tenants.
      I repeat what I said on Second Reading and referred to earlier in the debate. I have in my constituency a small village with a very deep sense of community. Some of the houses are owned by the MOD and some by the SSHA. Perhaps I am wrong in not trying to devise a new clause to cover the situation because there is nothing in the Bill, but it would have been very difficult to do it and highly unlikely that it would have been accepted. Here is a community where it would have been possible, with both housing sectors in the public domain, to allow the MOD houses to be transferred with the SSHA houses to Scottish Homes to keep the sense of community, but that, for doctrinal reasons, or perhaps Treasury reasons, is not being done.
      If the Secretary of State points the finger at the Opposition Benches and talks about frozen attitudes, should he not consider whether he is also guilty of being frozen in his attitude by a doctrinal abhorrence of local
      990
      authority housing? I ask him to act in the interest of what is good for Scottish housing and of keeping the sense of community not just for the 1980s but into the year 2000.
      10.15 pm
      Mr. Millan: The reason why SSHA tenants are so suspicious about, and indeed hostile to, this legislation is that it was clear that the Goverment's original intention was to hive off houses from the SSHA, presumably to the private sector. The Government have been moved from that position because of the hostile reaction of the SSHA tenants and are now saying that those tenants do not have to worry, because nothing is going to happen without their consent.
      That assurance is all right as far as it goes, but it does not go far enough. I want to ask the Minister how far that assurance goes and how long it lasts, because unless new clause 9 is inserted into the Bill the Opposition will take the view that the assurance will be very short-lived and that the Government will revert as soon as they possibly can to their original intention of hiving off these houses to the private sector. That would be wholly undemocratic and certainly against the wishes of the tenants.
      Mr. John McAllion: I rise to lend my support, like my hon. Friends, to new clause 9, but first I must say that, like my hon. Friend the hon. Member for Greenock and Port Glasgow (Dr. Godman), I was informed this evening that the Prime Minister would be visiting my constituency. This may come as something of a surprise to Dundonians, who in the past nine years have never been graced by the presence of the Prime Minister. For her to choose this week of all weeks to visit Dundee does not bode well for the city.
      Mr. Home Robertson: Well, what did it do to Churchill?
      Mr. McAllion: Churchill was a Liberal in those days.
      I would expect that the Prime Minister would bring some good news to Dundee in terms of jobs for certain groups of us, anyway. I hope very much that jobs will be announced in Dundee tomorrow. But it is a matter of some concern to hon. Members that the press in Dundee should have been informed five or six hours before the Member of Parliament for Dundee was informed. That, of course, is par for the course for the present Prime Minister, who treats hon. Members with utter contempt, no matter on which side of the House they sit.
      Dr. Godman: My experience is exactly the same as my hon. Friend's. I might say, however, that the Prime Minister declined my invitation to visit Port Glasgow. She is visiting Greenock, not Port Glasgow, and that for me is a matter of deep regret.
      Mr. McAllion: I can understand why the Prime Minister picks the places she visits in Scotland carefully; she would not receive a welcoming reception anywhere.
      New clause 9 deals with extensions of tenants' rights, and I should have thought that all hon. Members would support it for that reason. The Government have long argued that they are in favour of widening choice for everyone in Britain and for tenants in particular. An important element of choice must be the ability to decide who one's landlord should be. The Government have recognised that in other parts of the Bill, with the new pick-a-landlord scheme; if people happen to be Scottish

      991
      Homes tenants or district council tenants, they have that right. The Minister must tell us why SSHA tenants are not being given the same right in the Bill.
      It is almost feudal to transfer property from the SSHA to Scottish Homes, given that that involves transferring families who happen to be living in the properties, without giving them any say in the matter. That is to treat them like medieval serfs or chattels, and that is what the Government are doing by failing to support the new clause.
      I want to take up the point made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Govan (Mr. Millan). The new Scottish Homes will be an uncertain type of landlord for the tenants transferred into its ownership. It will have a huge budget at its disposal for spending on housing, but we know from Committee that the Minister has been careful not to give it any sort of housing responsibility. Dampness, condensation, overcrowding and homelessness will not be the responsibility of Scottish Homes; that will remain with the district councils. Scottish Homes will spend its huge budget only on joint projects with the private sector on the sort of schemes that involve two or three pounds of private sector money for every one pound of public sector money. So it will not spend the money looking after its new tenants.
      The tenants of Scottish Homes must wonder what the priorities of the new agency will he. They will certainly not be the tenants who come under its control. Bearing in mind the consultation document, we remember that this is only to be a transitional stage and that Scottish Homes will quickly dispose of the 83,000 tenants to some other form of tenure. That remains the secret, hidden agenda of Scottish Homes, even though the Government have been forced to back down on it. The people who run Scottish Homes will get rid of those tenants as a priority—some of them into the private sector—and it is that which gives rise to our fears.
      Tenants earnestly desire the right to choose district councils as their landlords. The Minister came to Whitfield and met Mrs. Sandra Thomson, a leading activist there who has done a tremendous amount of work to organise tenants over the past few years. She has written a paper on the new Housing (Scotland) Bill, setting out her thoughts about it. In one part of the paper she speaks about the role of tenants' organisations and how they have been ignored by the Government:
      "It appears that in the new Bill, no provision or thought has been given to Tenants Organisations already established within communities, or new ones wishing to set up into groups. Most organisations depend on local authorities to allocate a house to use as a meeting place and organise activities for children and adults. Primarily, they are set up to help upgrade their areas, but mainly to help alleviate feelings of depression and isolation, especially in areas of multiple deprivation.
      Most tenants from all walks of life, have had no say nor has there been any consultation with them concerning the Bill.
      If the Private Sector take over streets, this will leave tenants' groups with nothing, they will disintegrate to such an extent, that there will be no more community spirit left. The time it has taken to become involved will have all been wasted.
      If the private sector do allow groups to stay, they would be unable to meet the cost of keeping their lounges open, because landlords will not give the same grant aid that local authorities do. If they are allowed to remain open, they would he accountable every move made, this has very significant implications, thus reduce the rights of the tenants."
      That is the legitimate and genuine voice of tenants who are concerned that the measures in the Bill will drive them
      992
      out of the public sector and away from local authorities. They make provision for their tenants and give them the right to come together and make demands on the landlord for the provision that they want. But a landlord's charter is included in the Bill, which will drive tenants into the private sector and denude them of their rights. The Minister should really be supporting new clause 9 to let the tenants decide what they want, rather than have the Government decide for them.
      Mr. Dalyell: May we clarify the position? We must go back to the question that was asked by my right hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Govan (Mr. Milian). Let me put it specifically in another form. Much of the trouble in West Lothian stems from the fact that some senior housing councillors went to a conference and returned to tell us that Derek Mason had made it very clear that within two or three years many of the SSHA houses would he disposed of to the private sector.
      My questions are simply, first, whether Derek Mason said that—to my satisfaction he undoubtedly did—and secondly, was he speaking with the authority of Ministers? Is that the intention of SSHA as it is now, Scottish Homes as it will be in the 1990s?
      Mr. McFall: The Bill integrates the SSHA into the new agency called Scottish Homes. Commentators in Scotland have not seen any intrinsic merit in that proposal. Nothing that the Government have said has given us any sign that the scheme has any merit. I contend that the future policy should be dealt with separately, in conjunction with tenants, staff and the management of the SSHA.
      I am at a loss to understand the housing policy that is behind the Government's creation of this super-quango. The Government talk about housing associations leading the way, but they account for only 2 per cent. of the housing stock in Scotland. In no way can one see them leading a major revival in the public sector. In fact, evidence from a study in England and Wales by the Priority Estates Project seems to contradict the appropriateness of divorcing the management of homes from the range of other local authority services. Certainly the tenants are against it.
      A democratic case has been put time and again. The tenants whom I have met in my constituency have said to me that if one member, one vote is good enough for trade unions, as the Government say, it is good enough for tenants when deciding which landlord they want.
      The Scottish Homes scheme has no proposals for decentralisation. There are no guarantees for tenants' representation on the board. As my hon. Friends have said, it is up to the Secretary of State alone to decide the composition of the SSHA board. The Government's solution to the problem of the peripheral estates is contrary to the years of evidence that have been built up in Scotland, as indeed is the case in England and Wales in relation to the Priority Estates Project.
      We are putting the case to the Government tonight through tenants' eyes. That viewpoint has been missing from the Government's approach time and again. We on this side of the House have spoken to tenants in their hundreds and thousands and gone to meetings. This is the message that tenants give us. We are not making up a story. We are putting over the tenants' case and their fears. Tenants tell me and my hon. Friends that deregulation in the housing market will not create a new and stable investment for them in the private rented sector.

      993
      Elderly tenants in my constituency have told me that the private sector in Dumbarton 50 years ago meant that two thirds of the population of the town lived in two or three narrow streets. The average number of people in homes in the town—room and kitchens, as they were called—was six, seven or eight. The infant mortality rate was 15 to 20 times what it is today. That was when the private sector reigned supreme in Dumbarton, and that is why we speak against the Government's reintroduction of the private sector without any consideration whatever for tenants.
      Time and again the Government tell us that the Bill is about consumer choice. The message that I have for the Government is that they are knocking consumer confidence on the head and consumers have no faith in the Government. They say that the Government are introducing this legislation for the sake of short-term speculation and that it will result in high-cost, low-quality housing.
      10.30 pm
      Mr. Paul Marland: What about jobs?
      Mr. McFall: What about jobs? This debate is about Scottish housing and we do not need an ignorant comment from an hon. Gentleman who came in a few seconds ago. His comments have got nothing to do with the general debate.
      994
      Scottish Homes has no statutory duty to house the homeless, and homelessness in Scotland is a blot on the Scottish landscape. My constituents say to me that private finance can be attracted only on the basis of profit. For every pound that goes into the landlord's pocket, they say that there will be a pound less for repairs, for modernisation and for the provision of new housing stock.
      The Government talk about
      "meeting the housing needs through a variety of rent regimes."
      In uncoded language, that means rent increases. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Govan (Mr. Millan) said, no assurances are offered to tenants by the Government. Is the assurance for SSHA tenants the same as the assurance for people in assured tenancies? The Government say that the minimum period for assured tenancies is six months. That is the case the first time round, but thereafter they can be for two or three months. That means that under the legislation a person in an assured tenancy for 10 years may have no more than two or three months' notice to get out. Will that help tenants and stabilise housing in Scotland?
      Opposition to the Government is widespread, and the Government have heard it not only from us but from tenants all over Scotland. The strength of dissatisfaction among local authority and SSHA tenants has been made known. I shall put my interpretation on what the Government are doing. They are paying no regard to Scottish housing, to Scotland or to the future need of the nation. In one fell swoop the Government are dismantling communities. That is at the core of this legislation and that is why it should be wholeheartedly opposed.
      Mr. Canavan: I am rather bemused by all the talk by hon. Members about prime ministerial visits to constituencies. I have not been informed about any intended visit to my constituency, although perhaps the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State are keeping it a big secret. In the Prime Minister's interests a visit to my constituency would have to be very secretive. She would be assured of a very hot reception.
      Mr. Bill Walker: One of the most disturbing things that I have heard in the debate was the announcement about what the Prime Minister is doing tomorrow. Do the hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friends not realise that one of the reasons for such information being kept a tight secret is the danger that its publication would impose on the Prime Minister and anyone else who happens to be in the vicinity?
      Mr. Canavan: If what the hon. Gentleman says is true, it is a sad reflection on the type of society that the Prime Minister has helped to create in Britain. If Ministers, including the Prime Minister, cannot go on to the streets of this country in relative safety, they must take some of the responsibility for the hellish society that they have created.
      When I say that the Prime Minister would be assured of a hot reception if she ever set foot in my constituency, I do not mean that in an intimidating and physical sense. I simply mean that her policies on housing and everything else are utterly despised by the vast majority of my constituents because she has foisted them on people against their wishes and with no mandate from the people of Scotland.
      Mr. Graham: I have tonight received a letter informing me, as a matter of courtesy, that the Prime Minister will undertake an engagement in my constituency tomorrow. I was told by the local newspapers over a week ago that the Prime Minister was coming to my constituency and would be visiting Erskine, Port Glasgow and Greenock. I find it strange that I am told this tonight. The hon. Member for Tayside, North (Mr. Walker) mentioned security reasons, but why tell other people and not me, as I was elected to represent my constituents?
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I cannot find anything in the new clauses about the Prime Minister's visits to anywhere. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will now address himself to the new clauses.
      Mr. Canavan: If or when the Prime Minister comes to my constituency, perhaps she could visit some Scottish Special Housing Association tenants who are affected by the Bill.
      New clauses 9, 18 and 19 refer to SSHA tenants. I am informed by the association that, in my constituency, there are 217 such tenants in Camelon, 258 in Hall Glen, 539 in Denny and 85 in Stenhousemuir, giving a total of 1,099. When the Government published their consultation document prior to the publication of the White Paper and the Bill, I could not find an SSHA tenant in my constituency who was in favour of the proposals in the consultative paper. I could not find an SSHA tenant in my constituency who was in favour of the proposals in the White Paper. I still cannot find an SSHA tenant in my constituency who is in favour of the proposals in the Bill.
      I have never maintained, and I do not think that any SSHA tenant would maintain, that the association is
      996
      perfect. I and other Opposition Members have been critical of some aspects of the SSHA. The fact that it is an unelected quango means that there is less accountability to the people and particularly to tenants than there is in council schemes. For example, if council tenants have a complaint about housing policy in general or about how it applies to their housing association, they can go along to their local councillor and he can take the matter up with his colleagues, the other elected members of the council.
      Some of us have argued a very strong case for tranferring all SSHA stock to local authorities. I am not for disbanding the SSHA completely. The SSHA, or Scottish Homes as it will become, should have a continuing role in building houses in areas of high growth or high need where the local authority cannot be expected to have the necessary resources to cope.
      The Bill will make the SSHA's position worse instead of better. The SSHA is the second biggest landlord in Scotland, with Glasgow district council having a slightly larger housing stock. Scottish Homes will become the biggest landlord in Scotland. One quango will have been taken over by an even bigger quango. Again, there will be a lack of accountability to members, with a subsequent lack of accountability to tenants. It boils down to a lack of democracy. Basically, the patronage of the Secretary of State will decide the policy of Scottish Homes and those who will implement it.
      When the consultative document was issued last year, there was almost 100 per cent. opposition to the proposals affecting SSHA tenants. I do not speak just on behalf of the SSHA tenants in my constituency. I have received letters from many housing associations all over Scotland which were trying to make a co-ordinated national effort to oppose the Bill. My correspondence and meetings led me to believe that there was almost 100 per cent. opposition by all SSHA tenants to the proposals, yet the Government have been determined to go ahead.
      In Committee the Minister dealt with a matter on which he could perhaps now enlighten the House. A big meeting was held in a Glasgow hotel attended by delegates of many tenants' associations representing SSHA tenants throughout Scotland, including a delegation from the Ochiltree tenants association in my constituency. I had previously met those tenants, who were angry about the Minister's proposals. They came away from the meeting with some hope because they found that not only they but virtually everyone at the meeting opposed the Government's proposals, with the exception of the Minister. Perhaps the Under-Secretary could tell us what transpired at that meeting and whether he or his officials could give any assurances to the people who had travelled to it from all over Scotland. I believe from my correspondence and the representations made to us that there is still great dissatisfaction. That is why we have tabled the new clauses.
      10.45 pm
      New clause 9 gives SSHA tenants the right to have the ownership of their home transferred to the district or islands council in whose area it stands or to any approved landlord. We simply ask the Government to give tenants the right to choose. The Government claim to be great supporters of the individual's rights and freedoms, of tenants' rights and so on. Indeed, in the original consultation document, they seemed to be saying that what they are about is extending choice between and

      997
      within the public and private sectors. But if the Government oppose the excellent new clause, as I suspect they will, they will be arguing against an extension of choice. All that we ask is that an SSHA tenant who wants to become a council tenant should have the right to do so.
      The Minister and his buddies on the Front Bench are always praising the private landlord, who they say will come to the rescue and help to solve Scotland's housing crisis. According to the Government, large numbers of potential Tory landlords are skulking away, waiting for the Bill to reach the statute book, at which time they will come out of their hidey-holes and start to build houses and take them over to let to the homeless. That is codswallop. Anyone who has read the history of private landlords in Scotland will know that it is nothing to be proud of; as my hon. Friend the Member for Dumbarton (Mr. McFall) said, it is an absolute disgrace. We certainly do not want to turn the clock back to the exploitation of tenants, rotten housing conditions, high rents and evictions.
      Having said that, I concede that there may be one or two decent, law-abiding, humane, good private landlords, or potential private landlords, around. If there are, and if an SSHA tenant wants to put his or her trust in such a private landlord, so be it. If the private landlord is approved — I understand that the definition of "approved" appears elsewhere in the Bill — the SSHA tenant has the right under the new clause to opt for the ownership of the house, and for his or her rights of tenancy to be transferred from Scottish Homes to that private landlord.
      I should have thought that any reasonable Government and any reasonable Minister would realise that there is a straightforward tenants' rights argument at stake. I remember a previous piece of legislation that the Government had the audacity to call the Tenants' Rights, Etc. (Scotland) (Amendment) Act, so they are at least paying lip service to tenants' rights. If they genuinely believe in the rights of the individual tenant, let them support new clause 9.
      In making absurd claims that there is no demand for genuine political devolution in Scotland, the Government sometimes say, "But we are a Government of devolvers, because we devolve power from the state and from big organisations to individuals." If they really believe that absurd claim, let them act on it. A typical example of that concept of devolution would be to take power away from a big bureaucracy, such as Scottish Homes will become.
      If the tenant wanted the ownership to be transferred to a local authority of more manageable size and with more local democratic accountability, the tenant would have that right. Similarly, in the event—in my constituency, it would be an unlikely event—of people wanting their house to be transferred to a private landlord, then, provided that that private landlord is approved under the Bill, the tenant would have that right. Therefore, if, as the Government claim, they are a Government of genuine devolution, they should support new clause 9.
      New clauses 18 and 19 were tabled by me and my hon. Friend the Member for Dunfermline, West (Mr. Douglas), who also has a considerable number of SSHA tenants in his constituency. As I said, I have more than 1,000 such tenants. I do not think that he has as many, but we will not quibble about that. The fact is that every SSHA tenant has certain fears about the Bill.
      998
      When the consultation was complete, the Government produced a White Paper, which was the precursor to the Bill, the relevant section of which is headed "Tenants' rights". Paragraph 2.6 states:
      "The position of tenants is the other aspect of the absorption of the SSHA within Scottish Homes which has caused concern."
      It is an understatement to say that it has caused concern—I would say that it has caused fear and alarm.
      The White Paper then states:
      "There has been considerable misrepresentation of the Government's proposals in this respect".
      I should be grateful if the Minister would enlighten us about that alleged misrepresentation of the Government's proposals because the White Paper refers to
      "unnecessary anxiety among SSHA tenants".
      There is certainly anxiety among SSHA tenants, but I would not have the complacency to describe that anxiety as unnecessary. I await the Minister's reassurances on that point.
      The White Paper also states:
      "Scottish Homes will continue the existing role of the SSHA as a model landlord in relation to its own stock".
      I do not know what the Minister means by a "model landlord" because, despite the good work that the SSHA has done since its inception over a century ago, very few SSHA tenants would say that it is a "model landlord" in every respect. There are genuine grievances against the SSHA as a landlord and fears that under the Bill tenants will become worse off rather than better off.
      The kernel of my argument in favour of new clauses 18 and 19 is that in paragraph 2.8 of the White Paper, the Government state:
      "Tenants will continue to enjoy the same rights with Scottish Homes as their landlord as they would have possessed as tenants of the SSHA".
      If that is true, and if the Minister is absolutely confident of its truth, he should not speak against new clause 18. All that the new clause does is enshrine in statute what the White Paper states in paragraph 2.8.
      I have looked through the Bill—
      Mr Galloway: Is my hon. Friend aware of just how intensely the hon. Member for Lancaster (Dame E. Kellett-Bowman) is listening to his speech, and how interested she is?
      Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: I have heard every word of it, and I am bored stiff.
      Mr. Canavan: I am very sorry for the hon. Lady, but she has my permission to go home to bed if she wishes. If she would like to intervene, I shall gladly give way, but if she continues to make rude seated interventions during this important debate—
      Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: I did not raise the point; it was the facetious hon. Member opposite.
      Hon. Members: Which one?
      Mr. Canavan: I do not think that the hon. Lady is referring to me, so I shall ignore her remarks.
      Now I have lost my train of thought—because of the Lancastrian interventions. I do not want to be sidetracked.
      I remember now. I was saying to the Minister that if the commitment in the White Paper is genuine, he should support new clause 18. I cannot claim, like the Minister, to be legally trained—although, to be honest, that lack of training is sometimes an advantage rather than a disadvantage—but I have looked through the Bill, and

      999
      cannot find in any of its clauses a categorical statement that SSHA tenants will not suffer from a deprivation or diminution of their rights. If I am wrong, I shall gladly withdraw what I have said; I stand to be corrected by the Minister. But my hon. Friend the Member for Dunfermline, West and I tabled the new clause because of the fears of our constituents, which are shared by the constituents of many other hon. Members.
      I do not think that the SSHA has any houses in Lancaster, but it certainly has houses in many Scottish constituencies, and new clause 18 would help to alleviate many of the present anxieties.
      Under new clause 18, the tenant would have to agree to any change in conditions of tenancy. In the event of a disagreement about those conditions, or about security of tenure—and I suggest that rent levels be included as well—the tenant would have the right to appeal to the appropriate rent officer, or to the rent assessment committee.
      At present, some SSHA tenants would argue that their rents are a bit too high. What I suppose was one of the SSHA's last circulars before it is wound up under the legislation was put out to tenants in my area — and presumably throughout Scotland — saying that rents would be increased by up to £150 a year. Under new clause 18, the SSHA or its successor organisation, Scottish Homes, would not be able to do that unilaterally. It would have to come up with proposals for rent increases and, if an individual tenant or group of tenants disagreed and thought that they had a fair case about a proposed rent increase or any other change in the tenancy agreement, they would have the right of appeal to the appropriate rent officer or the rent assessment committee. Perhaps the Minister could advise us what he thinks would be the best procedure—whether it should be an individual decision by the rent officer or a collective decision by the rent assessment committee.
      11 pm
      New clause 19 also stands in my name and that of my hon. Friend the Member for Dunfermline, West. It refers to transfers
      "to a private landlord or landlords of ownership of any house owned or administered by Scottish Homes."
      We are saying that the transfer of ownership to a private landlord should not take place unless written consent has been obtained from the tenant of the house in question. I have confined the drafting of the new clause to cases where, at the time of the establishment of Scottish Homes, the person or persons were SSHA tenants. In other words, it would not apply to future tenancies but would apply only to tenancies in existence prior to the setting up of Scottish Homes. I should have thought that that would narrow the scope a little and make it easier for the Government to accept the new clause.
      It comes down to the basic question of tenants' choice and tenants' rights. The Government claim that they are in favour of the rights of individual tenants, so surely it is not asking too much that the consent of the tenant ought to be obtained before the ownership of his or her house is transferred.
      I tabled another new clause about having a ballot of all SSHA tenants, but that was not called, so I do not want to dwell on it. I believe that the matter was raised in Committee and was adequately dealt with then. I certainly do not want to go over ground that was raised in Committee.
      1000
      The effect of new clause 19 is that, rather than the decision being made collectively by means of a ballot, it would, in the spirit of the concept of devolution proposed by the Government, devolve the decision to the individual tenant. Therefore, I hope that the Minister will give it sympathetic consideration.
      Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: I am glad to respond. Like the hon. Member for Falkirk, West (Mr. Canavan) I too represent SSHA tenants and am glad to have the opportunity to do so. I am well aware of their views. The hon. Gentleman is correct in saying that we do not want to turn the clock back. In fact, we want to turn the clock forward.
      The hon. Member for Falkirk, West asked how rents will be set for SSHA tenants. They will be set on the same basis as at present and the rent assessment committee does not and will not play any part. They will be secured tenants as tenants of Scottish Homes.
      The hon. Member for Strathkelvin and Bearsden (Mr. Galbraith) asked whether agency arrangements would transfer. The answer is that all contractual agreements and formal liabilities that the SSHA has with local authorities or anybody else will transfer to Scottish Homes under the terms of clause 3
      The hon. Member for East Lothian (Mr. Home Robertson) asked about Shetland tenants and the extent of consultation. Tenants have been fully consulted in the Shetlands and it is in the light of their response that the SSHA has decided not to cease being their landlord. The SSHA held public meetings to which tenants were free to come and offered to visit tenants individually in their homes. The fact that it was unable to make contact with some tenants cannot reasonably be held to be a criticism of its attempts at consultation. I should make it quite dear that the SSHA is not withdrawing from Shetland as a landlord.
      The essence of new clause 9 is the Opposition's belief that local authorities should be encouraged to grow ever larger as landlords. That is in spite of the fact that they already own more than two out of every three rented houses in Scotland. It also ignores the fact that in some local authorities the council owns almost eight out of every 10 houses. Allowing for the fact that the other two houses include those which are owner-occupied, the local authority is virtually the only landlord available to anyone wishing to rent in those areas. However, the Opposition's response to that horrifying lack of choice and opportunity is to seek ways of making local authorities even greater monopoly landlords than they are now.
      There is no point in the Opposition including a reference in this new clause to other types of landlord. That is a smokescreen. The tenants of Scottish Homes will have the rights available under tenants' choice provision as the Bill stands without any need for the relevant part of the new clause. It is well known that we are not opposed to Scottish Homes tenants having the choice of moving to another landlord. One of Scottish Homes' main tasks will be to offer its own tenants wider choice in relation to the way in which their houses are managed and by whom. We have always made that clear. I am glad that the Opposition now share our view that Scottish Homes tenants should be offered the option of transferring to approved landlords.
      Mr. Wallace: The Minister has seen the response of the SSHA tenants in Shetland; 70 per cent. of those who responded wanted to be transferred to the local authority. Why should they be denied that choice?
      Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: The possibility of the transfer of the houses to Shetland islands council was suggested as a fallback for those SSHA tenants who under the original proposals were not willing to transfer to the local housing association. The transfer of those tenants' houses to the council would still have allowed the SSHA to withdraw completely from the Shetlands. I want to make it clear that there is no question of the SSHA withdrawing from the Shetlands in the present circumstances. Therefore, the situation described by the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Wallace) does not arise.
      Mr. Wallace: I have listened to the Minister refer to a letter sent to Shetland islands council. Will he answer this simple point? The tenants were asked which option they wanted to exercise and 70 per cent. said that they wished to become council tenants. Why are the Government denying them the right to exercise that choice?
      Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: Quite simply, because the SSHA is not withdrawing from the Shetlands. That situation would have arisen if the SSHA had withdrawn from the Shetlands. However, as I have made absolutely clear to the hon. Member for Orkney, and Shetland, the SSHA is not withdrawing—
      Mr. Wallace rose—
      Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: I have already given way to the hon. Gentleman. I am aware of his views. The SSHA is not withdrawing.
      Mr. Wallace: If the Bill becomes an Act and Scottish Homes is created, the SSHA will no longer exist. Why at that point should 70 per cent. of SSHA tenants who replied that they wanted to become SIC tenants, not be allowed to do so?
      Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: The only difference is that Scottish Homes will take over all the rights and obligations. The tenants will have the same rights of tenure, the same people will be looking after their houses and they will have the same way of setting their rents. There is no reason for them to withdraw in those circumstances because the SSHA—like its successor, Scottish Homes—is not withdrawing from the scene.
      Mr. Brian Wilson rose—
      Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: The Opposition seek to dress up their opposition to choice as it that was their own idea. The hon. Member for East Lothian made a speech recently at a housing conference, in which he said that the Opposition's alternative to the Government's policy would be to encourage co-operatives and housing associations. I find that a wonderfully novel twist, as those are the Government's policies. The Opposition are exchanging bankruptcy for theft.
      The Opposition would have us believe that there can be no happier state imaginable than to be a local authority tenant and that local authorities cannot possibly dominate the lives of too many people. We suggest that the evidence is somewhat different. Alongside the well-built, well-maintained and well-managed houses which show the best of what local authorities can achieve, there are large
      1002
      numbers of rundown and poorly managed houses, in which tenants are subjected to an impoverished quality of life which is a travesty of the standards which public services should represent. Some local authorities are too large and remote and some of them have been regrettably complacent about their tenants, secure in the knowledge that those tenants have no other practical alternative to renting from them as things stand.
      Mr. Wilson: Notwithstanding the flood of subjective opinions which the Minister offers about local authorities, and bearing in mind that he answered the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Wallace) purely in terms of the specific Shetland situation, does he accept that there is an absolute contradiction between the use of the words "freedom of choice", a principle that I can go a long way towards agreeing with, and the refusal of freedom of choice to anyone who dares to offend the Government by wanting to choose a local authority?
      Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: There is certainly an extension of choice and opportunity for tenants throughout Scotland. My view of local authorities is shared by the hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw) who, writing in The Guardian last Wednesday, said:
      "In the field of public services, particularly those provided by local authorities, the evidence does not suggest that efficiency ranks high in their reputation."
      Nothing in the Bill prevents Scottish Homes from disposing of its houses to a local authority, with the consent of the Secretary of State for Scotland, if that makes sense in a particular set of local circumstances. It certainly does not in the case of the Shetlands, for the reasons that I have given.
      Let me deal now with new clauses 18 and 19. I continue to be amazed at the capacity of Opposition Members to ignore the facts about SSHA tenants and Scottish Homes. Clause 3(2) preserves the position of SSHA tenants as secure tenants, with all the attendant rights, once they become tenants of Scottish Homes. We made our intentions absolutely clear even before the Bill was published. New clause 18 is therefore entirely unnecessary.
      The Government gave public sector tenants rights, against deep opposition from the Labour party, including the hon. Member for Falkirk, West (Mr. Canavan), in the Tenants' Rights Etc. (Scotland) Act 1980. Those rights included the right to buy, which over 107,000 tenants have now done, and also a wider range of other rights, including security of tenure, the right to a written lease and the right of succession. Those rights, so widely welcomed, will not be taken away by the Bill. The Bill adds to them. When SSHA tenants become tenants of Scottish Homes, they will be secure tenants.
      We have discussed a new clause to ease restriction on the discount applying in the right to buy. The Bill gives public sector tenants the right to invite another landlord to take over their houses.
      Mr. Canavan: The Minister said that new clause 18 was unnecessary, and I think that he is implying that new clause 19 is also unnecessary. But would he care to tell us which part of the Bill, or any legislation on the statute book, says precisely what new clause 18 says or gives tenants security of rights equivalent to those proposed in new clause 18? Can he give us chapter and verse?
      Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: It is absolutely clear that there will be no compulsion against any SSHA

      1003
      tenants. No solution will be forced on anyone against his or her will. There is not a word of compulsion for public sector tenants. For SSHA tenants who are satisfied with the management arrangements for their homes, little will change on the advent of Scottish Homes. The same staff and offices will be there to deal with them, and Scottish Homes will maintain the same high standards of management.
      Mr. McAllion: The Minister mentioned three or four different rights which he claimed the Government had given tenants under the provisions of the Bill. Why, if a tenant uses the pick-a-landlord scheme to move into an assured tenancy, will each of those rights be taken away by the Government?
      Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: The hon. Gentleman is quite inaccurate. Under various Acts of Parliament, there are grounds for the eviction of council house tenants, just as there are for anyone else. The grounds may be slightly different, but the hon. Gentleman is quite incorrect.
      The new organisation will of course develop a variety of alternative management arrangements for the houses it owns. These will be offered to tenants to take up if they wish, and tenants' views will be fully respected. New clause 19 is therefore entirely unnecessary. Clause 2(3)(b) of the Bill already prevents Scottish Homes from disposing of houses except in accordance with arrangements made by the Secetary of State. I must therefore ask the hon. Gentleman to withdraw new clause 19 or I shall advise my hon. Friends to vote against it.
      11.15 pm
      Mr. Home Robertson: The Minister was not terribly convincing. As my hon. Friend the Member for Dundee, East (Mr. McAllion) said, the Government may claim credit for creating certain rights for tenants, but the Bill takes away those rights. There is no way in which the Minister can wriggle out of that aspect of the Bill.
      The only choice that will be available to people moving out of Scottish Homes tenure will be to move into any tenure other than local authority tenure. It has been made abundantly clear that a substantial number—probably the majority—of SSHA tenants, given the option, would prefer to transfer to the local authority. Who would be surprised at that? The hon. Member for Tayside, North (Mr. Walker) said that even if they want to, they should not be allowed to do so.
      We have smoked out what the Government and the Tory party mean when they talk about tenants' choice. They are prepared to let tenants choose, so long as the tenants exercise the choice that the Government want them to make. If tenants have the temerity to want to transfer into local authority tenure, the Government will prevent them from doing so.
      The Minister has pleaded guilty to that charge. Opposition Members want to establish genuine choice for tenants. We recognise the demands of SSHA tenants to be able to transfer to the local authority, but we would not stand in their way if they wanted to transfer to another sector. We believe in genuine choice. New clause 9 provides for that, and I urge my right hon. and hon. Friends to support it.
      Question put, That the clause be read a Second time:—
      The House divided: Ayes 189, Noes 252.

      Division No. 239]

      [11.18 pm

      AYES

      Abbott, Ms Diane

      Henderson, Doug

      Allen, Graham

      Hinchliffe, David

      Alton, David

      Hogg, N. (C'nauld & Kilsyth)

      Archer, Rt Hon Peter

      Holland, Stuart

      Armstrong, Hilary

      Home Robertson, John

      Banks, Tony (Newham NW)

      Hood, Jimmy

      Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)

      Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

      Barron, Kevin

      Hughes, John (Coventry NE)

      Battle, John

      Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

      Benn, Rt Hon Tony

      Hughes, Sean (Knowsley S)

      Bermingham, Gerald

      Illsley, Eric

      Bray, Dr Jeremy

      Ingram, Adam

      Brown, Gordon (D'mline E)

      Janner, Greville

      Brown, Nicholas (Newcastle E)

      John, Brynmor

      Brown, Ron (Edinburgh Leith)

      Jones, Barry (Alyn & Deeside)

      Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)

      Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

      Buchan, Norman

      Kennedy, Charles

      Buckley, George J.

      Kinnock, Rt Hon Neil

      Callaghan, Jim

      Kirkwood, Archy

      Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

      Lamond, James

      Campbell-Savours, D. N.

      Leadbitter, Ted

      Canavan, Dennis

      Lestor, Joan (Eccles)

      Clark, Dr David (S Shields)

      Lewis, Terry

      Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)

      Litherland, Robert

      Clay, Bob

      Livingstone, Ken

      Clelland, David

      Livsey, Richard

      Clwyd, Mrs Ann

      Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)

      Cohen, Harry

      Lofthouse, Geoffrey

      Coleman, Donald

      Loyden, Eddie

      Cook, Robin (Livingston)

      McAllion, John

      Corbett, Robin

      McAvoy, Thomas

      Corbyn, Jeremy

      Macdonald, Calum A.

      Cousins, Jim

      McFall, John

      Cox, Tom

      McLeish, Henry

      Crowther, Stan

      McNamara, Kevin

      Cryer, Bob

      McTaggart, Bob

      Cummings, John

      McWilliam, John

      Cunliffe, Lawrence

      Madden, Max

      Dalyell, Tam

      Marek, Dr John

      Darling, Alistair

      Marshall, David (Shettleston)

      Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)

      Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

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

      Maxton, John

      Dewar, Donald

      Meacher, Michael

      Dixon, Don

      Meale, Alan

      Dobson, Frank

      Michael, Alun

      Doran, Frank

      Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)

      Douglas, Dick

      Michie, Mrs Ray (Arg'l & Bute)

      Duffy, A. E. P.

      Millan, Rt Hon Bruce

      Dunnachie, Jimmy

      Mitchell, Austin (G'f Grimsby)

      Eadie, Alexander

      Moonie, Dr Lewis

      Eastham, Ken

      Morgan, Rhodri

      Evans, John (St Helens N)

      Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)

      Ewing, Harry (Falkirk E)

      Mullin, Chris

      Ewing, Mrs Margaret (Moray)

      Murphy, Paul

      Faulds, Andrew

      Nellist, Dave

      Fearn, Ronald

      Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon

      Field, Frank (Birkenhead)

      O'Brien, William

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

      O'Neill, Martin

      Fisher, Mark

      Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

      Flannery, Martin

      Patchett, Terry

      Flynn, Paul

      Pike, Peter L.

      Foster, Derek

      Powell, Ray (Ogmore)

      Foulkes, George

      Prescott, John

      Fraser, John

      Primarolo, Dawn

      Galbraith, Sam

      Quin, Ms Joyce

      Galloway, George

      Radice, Giles

      George, Bruce

      Randall, Stuart

      Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John

      Redmond, Martin

      Godman, Dr Norman A.

      Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn

      Golding, Mrs Llin

      Richardson, Jo

      Gordon, Mildred

      Robertson, George

      Graham, Thomas

      Robinson, Geoffrey

      Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

      Rogers, Allan

      Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

      Rooker, Jeff

      Hardy, Peter

      Rowlands, Ted

      Harman, Ms Harriet

      Ruddock, Joan

      Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy

      Salmond, Alex

      Heffer, Eric S.

      Sedgemore, Brian

      1005

      Sheerman, Barry

      Wallace, James

      Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

      Walley, Joan

      Shore, Rt Hon Peter

      Wardell, Gareth (Gower)

      Skinner, Dennis

      Wareing, Robert N.

      Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)

      Welsh, Andrew (Angus E)

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

      Welsh, Michael (Doncaster N)

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

      Williams, Rt Hon Alan

      Soley, Clive

      Williams, Alan W. (Carm'then)

      Spearing, Nigel

      Wilson, Brian

      Steel, Rt Hon David

      Winnick, David

      Steinberg, Gerry

      Wise, Mrs Audrey

      Stott, Roger

      Worthington, Tony

      Strang, Gavin

      Wray, Jimmy

      Straw, Jack

      Young, David (Bolton SE)

      Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

      Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

      Tellers for the Ayes:

      Turner, Dennis

      Mr. Allen McKay and

      Vaz, Keith

      Mr. Allen Adams.

      Wall, Pat

      NOES

      Adley, Robert

      Durant, Tony

      Aitken, Jonathan

      Eggar, Tim

      Alexander, Richard

      Fairbairn, Nicholas

      Alison, Rt Hon Michael

      Fallon, Michael

      Allason, Rupert

      Forman, Nigel

      Amess, David

      Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

      Amos, Alan

      Fowler, Rt Hon Norman

      Arbuthnot, James

      Fox, Sir Marcus

      Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

      Freeman, Roger

      Arnold, Tom (Hazel Grove)

      Gale, Roger

      Ashby, David

      Garel-Jones, Tristan

      Atkinson, David

      Glyn, Dr Alan

      Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)

      Gorman, Mrs Teresa

      Baldry, Tony

      Gow, Ian

      Banks, Robert (Harrogate)

      Gower, Sir Raymond

      Batiste, Spencer

      Grant, Sir Anthony (CambsSW)

      Bellingham, Henry

      Greenway, John (Ryedale)

      Bendall, Vivian

      Gregory, Conal

      Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)

      Griffiths, Sir Eldon (Bury St E')

      Benyon, W.

      Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)

      Bevan, David Gilroy

      Grist, Ian

      Biffen, Rt Hon John

      Grylls, Michael

      Blackburn, Dr John G.

      Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn

      Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter

      Hampson, Dr Keith

      Boscawen, Hon Robert

      Hanley, Jeremy

      Bottomley, Peter

      Hannam, John

      Bowden, A (Brighton K'pto'n)

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

      Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)

      Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn)

      Bowis, John

      Harris, David

      Boyson, Rt Hon Dr Sir Rhodes

      Haselhurst, Alan

      Braine, Rt Hon Sir Bernard

      Hawkins, Christopher

      Brandon-Bravo, Martin

      Hayes, Jerry

      Brazier, Julian

      Hayhoe, Rt Hon Sir Barney

      Bright, Graham

      Hayward, Robert

      Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

      Heddle, John

      Browne, John (Winchester)

      Hicks, Robert (Cornwall SE)

      Bruce, Ian (Dorset South)

      Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.

      Buck, Sir Antony

      Hill, James

      Burns, Simon

      Hind, Kenneth

      Burt, Alistair

      Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)

      Butcher, John

      Holt, Richard

      Butler, Chris

      Hordern, Sir Peter

      Butterfill, John

      Howard, Michael

      Carlisle, John, (Luton N)

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

      Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

      Howarth, G. (Cannock & B'wd)

      Carrington, Matthew

      Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)

      Carttiss, Michael

      Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk)

      Cash, William

      Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)

      Chalker, Rt Hon Mrs Lynda

      Hunt, David (Wirral W)

      Chope, Christopher

      Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)

      Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)

      Hunter, Andrew

      Cope, John

      Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas

      Cormack, Patrick

      Irvine, Michael

      Couchman, James

      Jack, Michael

      Currie, Mrs Edwina

      Jackson, Robert

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

      Janman, Tim

      Davis, David (Boothferry)

      Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey

      Dorrell, Stephen

      Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

      Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

      Jones, Robert B (Herts W)

      1006

      Jopling, Rt Hon Michael

      Redwood, John

      Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine

      Renton, Tim

      King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)

      Riddick, Graham

      Kirkhope, Timothy

      Ridley, Rt Hon Nicholas

      Knapman, Roger

      Ridsdale, Sir Julian

      Knight, Greg (Derby North)

      Roberts, Wyn (Conwy)

      Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston)

      Roe, Mrs Marion

      Knowles, Michael

      Rossi, Sir Hugh

      Knox, David

      Rost, Peter

      Lamont, Rt Hon Norman

      Rowe, Andrew

      Lang, Ian

      Ryder, Richard

      Latham, Michael

      Sackville, Hon Tom

      Lawrence, Ivan

      Sainsbury, Hon Tim

      Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)

      Sayeed, Jonathan

      Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)

      Shaw, David (Dover)

      Lightbown, David

      Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)

      Lilley, Peter

      Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')

      Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)

      Shephard, Mrs G. (Norfolk SW)

      Lord, Michael

      Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

      Lyell, Sir Nicholas

      Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)

      MacKay, Andrew (E Berkshire)

      Shersby, Michael

      McLoughlin, Patrick

      Sims, Roger

      McNair-Wilson, M. (Newbury)

      Skeet, Sir Trevor

      McNair-Wilson, P. (New Forest)

      Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

      Madel, David

      Soames, Hon Nicholas

      Major, Rt Hon John

      Speed, Keith

      Malins, Humfrey

      Speller, Tony

      Mans, Keith

      Spicer, Sir Jim (Dorset W)

      Maples, John

      Squire, Robin

      Marshall, John (Hendon S)

      Stanbrook, Ivor

      Marshall, Michael (Arundel)

      Steen, Anthony

      Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

      Stern, Michael

      Mates, Michael

      Stewart, Andy (Sherwood)

      May hew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick

      Stradling Thomas, Sir John

      Mellor, David

      Sumberg, David

      Meyer, Sir Anthony

      Summerson, Hugo

      Miller, Hal

      Taylor, Ian (Esher)

      Mills, Iain

      Taylor, John M (Solihull)

      Miscampbell, Norman

      Temple-Morris, Peter

      Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

      Thompson, D. (Calder Valley)

      Mitchell, David (Hants NW)

      Tracey, Richard

      Moate, Roger

      Tredinnick, David

      Monro, Sir Hector

      Trippier, David

      Montgomery, Sir Fergus

      Trotter, Neville

      Moore, Rt Hon John

      Twinn, Dr Ian

      Morris, M (N'hampton S)

      Vaughan, Sir Gerard

      Morrison, Hon Sir Charles

      Waddington, Rt Hon David

      Morrison, Hon P (Chester)

      Wakeham, Rt Hon John

      Moss, Malcolm

      Waldegrave, Hon William

      Neale, Gerrard

      Walden, George

      Nelson, Anthony

      Walker, Bill (T'side North)

      Neubert, Michael

      Waller, Gary

      Newton, Rt Hon Tony

      Ward, John

      Nicholls, Patrick

      Watts, John

      Nicholson, David (Taunton)

      Wells, Bowen

      Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)

      Wheeler, John

      Onslow, Rt Hon Cranley

      Whitney, Ray

      Oppenheim, Phillip

      Widdecombe, Ann

      Page, Richard

      Wilkinson, John

      Patten, Chris (Bath)

      Wilshire, David

      Patten, John (Oxford W)

      Wolfson, Mark

      Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

      Wood, Timothy

      Pawsey, James

      Woodcock, Mike

      Porter, David (Waveney)

      Yeo, Tim

      Powell, William (Corby)

      Young, Sir George (Acton)

      Price, Sir David

      Raffan, Keith

      Tellers for the Noes:

      Raison, Rt Hon Timothy

      Mr. Mark Lennox-Boyd and

      Rathbone, Tim

      Mr. David Maclean.

      Question accordingly negatived.

    New clause 11

      APPLICATIONS SERVED ON NEW TOWN DEVELOPMENT CORPORATIONS
      'Where an application is served under this Part of this Act (Change of Landlord: Secure Tenants) by a local authority on

      1007
      a new town development corporation in the circumstances provided for under section 54(2)(d) above, the provisions of sections 55(5) to (10), 56, 57, 58(1)(b) to (3), 59, 60 and 61 shall not apply and the conditions of sale shall be as directed by the Secretary of State.'.—[Mr. Ingram.]
      Brought up, and read the First time.
      Mr. Adam Ingram: 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 12—Capital expenditure on houses acquired by district councils—
      'In so far as a District Council in terms of section 53(1)(b) above acquire houses from a Development Corporation the Secretary of State shall grant an additional amount of capital expenditure consent in the financial year in question, such additional amount to be not less than a sum equivalent to the aggregate amount payable by the District Council to the Development Corporation in respect of houses so acquired by the District Council under the powers conferred on them in terms of this Part of this Act.'.
      New clause 13 — Assets of new town development corporation—
      'Where the Secretary of State for Scotland makes an Order under section 36(1) of the New Towns (Scotland) Act 1968 providing for the winding up and dissolution of a New Town Development Corporation—

      (a) The New Town Development Corporation shall transfer to the Local Authority (being a local authority in whose administrative area the New Town or any part thereof is situated) the following assets:

      All housing stock owned in whole or part by the New Town Development Corporation together with any property associated therewith or relating thereto (excluding housing held temporarily on land acquired by the development corporation for commercial or industrial development) together also with all rights, liabilities and obligations relating thereto, as defined in Schedule (new town property to be automatically transferred to local authorities) to this Act.'

      (b) The new town development corporation may transfer to the local authority:

      housing depots, office accommodation and nurseries and such other property as is defined in Schedule (new town property to be transferred subject to negotiation) to this Act.

      Amendment No. 108, in clause 53, page 30, line 8, after `effect', insert '(a)'.
      Amendment No. 109, in page 30, line 14, at end insert
      ; and
      (b) for the purpose of conferring on a District Council the right to acquire from a Development Corporation any house within the area of that District Council which on the relevant date is occupied by a qualifying tenant.'
      Amendment No. 110, in page 30, line 31, leave out 'this Part of this Act' and insert 'subsection (1)(a) above'.
      Amendment No. 111, in clause 54, page 31, line 39, leave out 'this Part' and insert
      `subsection (1)(a) of section 53'.
      Amendment No. 105, in page 31, line 43, after 'homes' insert
      `and subject to subsection (2)(e) below'.
      Amendment No. 112, in page 31, line 45, at end insert
      'in terms of subsection (1)(a) of section 53.'.
      Amendment No. 106, in page 32, line 7, at end insert—
      '(e) in respect of any house owned by a new town development corporation, shall be deemed to be granted to the local authority, which is the public
      1008
      sector housing authority within whose administrative area the house is situated upon the winding-up and dissolution of the new town development corporation as provided for under section 36(1) of the New Towns (Scotland) Act 1968'.
      Amendment No. 107, in page 32, line 8, after '(3)', Insert—
      `With the exception of a deemed approval under subsection (2)(e) above.'.
      Amendment No. 113, in clause 55, page 32, line 11, leave out
      `or, as the case may be, Scottish Homes'
      and insert,
      'Scottish Homes, or, as the case may be, the district council'.
      Amendment No. 114, in page 32, line 30, after 'served', insert `by an approved person.'
      Amendment No. 115, in page 33, line 22, at end insert—
      '(11) Where an application is served under this section by a district council on a development corporation the provisions of subsections (5) to (10) above shall apply subject to the following amendments, namely-(a) the offer to sell notice shall state the lesser of the market value of the house determined in accordance with said provisions on the date of service of the application and determined by the District Valuer and the outstanding debt in the development corporation's accounts in respect of the house; and (b) the offer to sell served under this subsection shall be subject only to such conditions as are accepted to be reasonable by the district council.'.
      Amendment No. 116, in page 33, line 23, after `applicant', insert
      `who is an approved person or as the case may be, Scottish Homes'.
      Amendment No. 117, in page 34, line 1, after `applicant,' insert
      `being an approved person or Scottish Homes as the case may be.'.
      Amendment No. 118, in clause 58, page 34, line 49, at end insert—
      '(4) Where a landlord is a development corporation and the application has been served by a district council the development corporation may not dispute the applicant's right.'.
      Amendment No. 119, in clause 60, page 35, line 20, after 'Homes', insert 'or a district council'.
      Amendment No. 120, new schedule — New town property to he automatically transferred to local authorities—

      '1. Development corporation rented housing (including housing used for other purposes and excluding agricultural properties acquired and held by the Development Corporation on a temporary basis, pending development).

      2. Development corporation rented housing developments which are under construction or are undergoing major rehabilitation.

      3. Garage and car spaces associated with housing defined in paragraph 1 above.

      4. Open space and play areas associated with areas of development corporation housing.

      5. Associated roads, accessways and underpasses which are the property of the development corporation and have not been transferred to the roads authority.

      6. Television relay systems.

      7. Land forming infill sites in areas of housing defined in paragraph 1 above.

      8. Land which has been allocated for housing and is awaiting development as part of an existing housing development area.

      9. Depots used wholly to serve housing defined in paragraph 1 above.

      10. Nurseries used wholly for maintenance of landscape in housing areas.

      11. Local housing offices.

      The following facilities shall be transferred to the local authority where they are situated in local or corner developments in housing areas, as opposed to neighbourhood centres:

      12. Meeting halls and clubrooms.

      13. Local and corner shops.

      14. Garages, car parks and workshops.

      15. Public houses and cafes.

      16. Surgeries.'.

      Amendment No. 121, new schedule — New town property to be transferred subject to negotiation—

      '1. Land zoned for future housing development.

      2. Development corporation houses situated within commercial or industrial developments or in areas zoned for future development.

      3. Central housing offices.

      4. Hotels.

      5. depots mainly serving housing.

      6. Nurseries mainly for maintenance of landscape in housing areas.

      7. Landlords' rights and interests in land leased in housing development areas for miscellaneous purposes.

      The following properties where they are situated in neighbourhood centres—

      8. Meeting halls.

      9. Shops.

      10. Garages, car parks and workshops.

      11. Public houses and cafes.

      12. Surgeries.'.

      Mr. Ingram: There are two purposes behind the new clauses. They are designed to create the circumstances in which tenants may choose, on the dissolution of a new town development corporation, to have a local authority as a landlord. They also attempt to lay down the principles and basis of such a transfer, and they are consistent with the previously agreed position between local housing authorities and the Scottish Office. The Bill, as explained by the Minister in Committee, is a repudiation of previous Government assurances on new towns and destroys many months of work undertaken by Scottish Office officials in consultation with the five district councils within whose boundaries the new towns lie.
      The present law on new town development corporations in Scotland, under section 36 of the New Towns (Scotland) Act 1968, provides for the transfer of new town district council housing stock to the relevant local authority. It is on that basis that assumptions have been made and assurances given by Ministers over recent years.
      In July 1982, the Secretary of State made clear his intention to wind up the new town development corporations in Scotland. At that time he said that the rented housing stock owned by those bodies would be transferred to the relevant district councils. In early 1983 a working party was set up to examine the means by which that would be achieved. It comprised Scottish Office officials and representatives of district councils.
      In August 1984 the working party reported. It set out the basis of the transfer on a no-profit, no-loss basis. More than a year's work went into arriving at that conclusion. The Minister took on board the working party's conclusions at the time, and in a ministerial statement confirmed yet again the Government's intention to transfer new town housing stock to local authorities. Therefore, the picture was clear to the 45,000 families who lived in new town corporation housing rented stock. Those families were secure in the knowledge that at some stage they would be transferred to responsible public sector landlords. That is no longer the case. New town tenants
      1010
      face a most uncertain future because of the Bill and the way in which it has been changed by Government amendments in Committee.
      One thing that we shall be able to tell those 45,000 families with certainty is that they have been deliberately misled by a Minister who neither cares nor listens to their views. In Committee the Minister said that new town tenants would be consulted before they were compulsorily transferred to landlords other than district councils. Those 45,000 families know what that means. Views will be ignored, just as the views of the SSHA tenants have been ignored. We have heard more on that tonight from the Minister.
      If the Minister intends to consult those tenants, I should place on record some consultation that has already taken place. That may save the Government time and money. Two councils with new towns within their boundaries have consulted their tenants in recent months in relation to this legislation. Cumbernauld and Kilsyth district council undertook a survey that was published on 29 February 1988. In an 11 per cent. sample of all new town tenants in Cumbernauld, 91·3 per cent. stated that they wished the district council to be one of the landlords from which they could choose on dissolution.
      Cunninghame district council, which is responsible for Irvine new town, took an even larger sample of new town tenants, and achieved an 88 per cent. success rate amongst those tenants, who also stated that they wished the district council to be one of their options on dissolution.
      I am sure that the Minister has been supplied with those findings. I shall be interested to hear what further consultation the Minister intends to offer in the immediate months for new town tenants which is relevant to those conclusions.
      In Committee, the Opposition were accused of being premature in raising the very issues that are before us tonight in these new clauses. I must say that we were neither premature nor wrong in doing so. It is scandalous to treat the 45,000 families who live in new town district council houses in the way that they are being treated in the Bill. They have the right to know now whether they will be allowed the real choice that they clearly want—the district council. They have the right to know whether they will have a secure tenancy, with democratic control over rent levels in the future. Those are the choices on which they want to be consulted. They do not want to be told that the choice is limited and that the district council is no longer an option for them.
      That clear message is coming not from Members of Parliament or district councils representing those areas, but from tenants. The Bill has provoked the tenants in new town areas to form tenants' associations. They are aware that they have a fight on their hands. They are going to fight to retain the very rights that were laid down in previous legislation—rights that they thought Ministers from 1982 onwards were declaring in terms of the choice open to them.
      The Government have said that the new town tenants will have to wait until 1989–90 to find out what is going to happen to them. We have tabled these new clauses to reflect the wishes of each and every family living in a new town development corporation rented house. This provision also represents the views of many people who live in their own property. They want local authority

      1011
      houses and local development corporation houses to be retained for the families which are being brought up in those new towns.
      Mr. Robin Cook: I am glad of this opportunity to change places with my hon. Friend the Member for East Kilbride (Mr. Ingram), so enabling him to speak from the Opposition Front Bench and me to support the new clause from the Back Benches. At the outset, I wish to place on record, as the representative of a new town, my appreciation of the work that my hon. Friend did in Committee in exploring this issue and exposing the position of the Government.
      It is regrettable that yet again such an important debate is to be answered by the Under-Secretary, who is not primarily responsible for housing in the new towns, and that the Minister of State who has that responsibility is absent.
      When my hon. Friend raised this issue in Committee, he was told that in the next parliamentary Session the Government would introduce legislation to put into effect the proposals in their White Paper. Tenants in new towns are thereby left in a state of uncertainty and insecurity for the next year. We should resolve the issue tonight and we should do so in defence of tenants' rights.
      This is a debate not about local authority rights but about tenants' rights. Local authorities have every reason to feel disgruntled about the Government's proposals. They have for long been encouraged to believe that the housing stock of the new towns would be transferred to them when the new towns were wound up. Indeed, they were encouraged to plan on that basis.
      Only a few years ago, officials from those local authorities, as part of a working party, spent much time and effort planning how best to handle the transfer of that housing stock. Indeed, new clause 13 contains the overall view of that working party, which was organised, and at the time accepted, by the Scottish Office. It is par for the course under the present Government that all that work should now be thrown out without even the pretence of consultation with the local authorities which contributed to it.
      Local authorities with new towns in their areas are now faced with the unpalatable prospect of being left with housing duties without the housing assets. In the context of Livingston, that will mean, for instance, a serious homelessness problem, because, although the local authority has few houses in the Livingston area, it will have to accept statutory responsibility for homeless families in the new town area. At present, the new town as a landlord co-operates voluntarily in discharging that duty. I see scant prospect of private landlords approved by Scottish Homes giving the same co-operation to the local authority in that important statutory function.
      Although, for all those reasons, local authorities have every right to be dissatisfied with the Government's proposals, the really serious issue is the reduction in tenants' rights. As my hon. Friend the Member for East Kilbride said, nothing has so electrified opinion among tenants in Livingston new town as these proposals of the Government. In the last five years, we have not had a federation of tenants' associations, yet within two months of these proposals surfacing, we have an active federation, formed mainly around the determination of tenants to fight for the right to choose a landlord for themselves.
      1012
      I stress that this is an issue of choosing the landlord. Once the Bill has become law, every public sector tenant with a local authority as the landlord will have the right to decide whether to remain in the public sector, and in particular whether to remain a local authority tenant. That choice apparently is to be denied new town tenants. They will not have the right to remain with their present landlord and will be denied the right to opt to become local authority tenants.
      11.45 pm
      We are not demanding that those tenants necessarily must become tenants of the local authority. The clause is framed so as to provide to those tenants the right to choose whether to become tenants of local authorities. They should be allowed that right and not denied it. I am confident that if the tenants of the new town and the tenants of Livingston are given that right to choose, most of them will choose to become local authority tenants. They will do that because as such tenants they will have greater security and a wider choice of transfers and will he likely to find their rents lower than the rents proposed by private landlords looking for an element of profit.
      I may be wrong. It may well turn out that the majority of tenants in my constituency will prefer to have private landlords. That will at least establish that the Minister, in putting the Bill before the House and in floating the idea of Scottish Homes and registered private landlords, was right to expect that many tenants would opt for that form of tenure. I ask the Minister to at least have confidence in his own proposals and give tenants the choice. He should allow them to decide whether they want private landlords or wish to be tenants of a local authority.
      The Government are fond of talking about choice. They commend the Bill by saying that it will give the tenant choice. Very well, let us give the new town tenants a choice as well. Let them decide whose tenants they wish to be, but let us make sure that all choices are made available to those tenants, including the opportunity and the right to become tenants of the local authority.
      Mr. Henry McLeish: The clause is designed to inject some sanity into a Bill that is characterised by all the hallmarks of the Government—indifference, arrogance and contempt. My hon. Friend the Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook) spoke about the plight of the new town. I represent the new town of Glerirothes which has excellent housing provision and a quality of environment that is second to none. While the problems of that new town have been exacerbated by the lack of cash resources from the Government, it has done an excellent job for its tenants. To the Government, these considerations seem to be irrelevant.
      A few years ago in discussions with the new town corporation, the Government agreed that when they reached the winding-up period in the early 1990s it was anticipated that the housing assets of the new town would be transferred to district councils. At the Dispatch Box and elsewhere the Government offer no compliments to local authorities that are doing a difficult job in the hostile environment created by the Government.
      The other appealing feature of the transfer of new town tenants and their assets to the district councils is that at a stroke there would have been democratisation of the new town housing function. That would have been welcomed by many Opposition Members because it would have not only provided a more sensible form of housing

      1013
      management, but built on the good physical policies that new towns have pursued. The Government would have none of that; through blind political prejudice, they have gone out of their way to ensure that the choice they talk about is not effective choice. That is because one of the key options for new town tenants will be removed by the Bill.
      It is a tragedy that district councils with major housing responsibilities have at a stroke been taken out of the serious housing debate in Scotland. Many council leaders view with increasing dismay the hostility focused upon them by the Government. The prospect of my tenants being faced with a choice between an approved private landlord or absorption in Scottish Homes fills them with dismay, bitterness and a great deal of anger.
      The reason for that is quite simple. A few miles from the new town in my constituency are two areas of British Coal properties that were bought by a private landlord. The landlord's headquarters are in Newcastle. It is a frightening prospect to represent areas in which the landlord is so remote from the tenants that it becomes a nightmare for them to get repairs done and for Members of Parliament to try and make the landlord tackle his responsibilities seriously. It is a return to the 1930s for that group of British Coal tenants.
      Why, in my constituency, do we see, on the one hand, the problems of private landlords and, on the other, a Government hell-bent on introducing an alien form of ownership to the new town, under which, by any objective measurement, the tenants will be much worse off?
      I return to the question of choice. It is nauseating to listen to the Conservative Front Bench talking about choice day in and day out, when it is choice only on the Government's terms. The Minister must tonight explain why a major option of district council involvement has been removed. Where is the intellectual or practical justification for taking excellent quality housing and tenants, casting them to the four winds and putting them at the mercy of the unscrupulous private landlords or of the new bureaucracy of Scottish Homes, which will be remote from the needs and aspirations of the people whom I represent in Glenrothes?
      What is more disappointing about the whole thrust of the Bill, especially in respect of new town policy, is the irrelevance of the proposals to the needs of the new town tenants. According to information supplied by Glenrothes development corporation, which administers the housing function, there are at present 552 families, 555 single persons and 226 senior citizens on the general waiting list of new applications. There are 580 families on the transfer waiting list. Almost 2,000 families are looking for decent accommodation in an environment which is sensitive to housing needs.
      The Bill does nothing for those people. I am worried that the proposals will worsen the chances of those people being adequately accommodated in the latter part of the 20th century in a safe and decent home that they can call their own, whether they purchase or rent. Why, at every turn, do we have politics based on dogma rather than on the needs of the people whom the Government purport to serve and to whom they say they are offering extended choice?
      The number of people on the waiting list is only one aspect of the challenge facing the Government, who are indifferent to real needs. What about the prospect of
      1014
      reduced cash for modernisation, repairs and maintenance? Is it not part of the Government's thinking to try to ease the burden on housing authorities, whether new towns or local authorities, which have tried to do a reasonable job in difficult circumstances? Is it not right that the Government should be providing in new towns allocation of cash for general needs? There has been a moratorium in Glenrothes since 1983. No housing has been built for general needs, despite a waiting list that now stands at almost 2,000 families.
      The Government claim to care about people with special needs. Why, then, are the disabled, the elderly and the handicapped now part of a growing queue for decent housing?
      It is heartbreaking to attend a surgery in my constituency — I am sure that this experience is shared by many of my hon. Friends — where elderly and disabled people seek assistance to obtain a property. The development corporation has many similiar families on the waiting lists and can do nothing to assist. I urge the Minister to take his responsibilities seriously, because the Bill is irrelevant to Scotland's housing needs and to the needs of the new town which I represent. Is it not time that the Government addressed the substantive issues that dominate my postbag and surgery and the needs of areas such as Glenrothes?
      It is customary for the Opposition in debates with the Government to dwell on the alien philosophies that underpin most of the Government's practical policies, but those philosophies are outrageous and immoral when dealing with such sensitive issues as housing. We are facing another enemy of decent people—the housing benefit changes that have started to bite in the computer printouts that fall through the letterboxes of the people whom I represent.
      I have catalogued growing demands for more repairs, more generous needs housing, more special needs housing and a fair deal for the disabled, the elderly and the handicapped. Will the Minister accept that the punitive element of housing benefit will only rub salt into their wounds? Will he accept that it is disgusting that an elderly person with a handicapped wife can have his housing benefit reduced so that he ends up paying perhaps £30 or £40 a month?
      On behalf of the tenants whom I represent, I say to the Minister that the Government's policies not only are unwelcome but smack of an arrogance and contempt to which I thought Ministers would not be so low as to stoop.
      Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: I am glad to confirm to the hon. Member for Fife, Central (Mr. McLeish) that the moratorium on general housing has ended and that development corporations are now building general needs houses.
      The hon. Member for East Kilbride (Mr. Ingram) raised these matters in Committee, and at that time I used the word "premature". I must do so again. The new clauses and amendments would give a district council the right compulsorily to acquire development corporation housing once an order for the winding up of the corporation had been made. The Opposition have ignored the reality that, under section 36 of the New Towns (Scotland) Act 1968, the district council is already in effect the only possible inheritor of a new town housing undertaking when the development corporation is wound up. It would take fresh legislation amending the wind-up

      1015
      provisions of the 1968 Act to change that. No such amendments are proposed in the Bill. We therefore have the curious prospect of a score of amendments proposing the very policy which is currently enshrined in statute.
      That policy must come under question, however, because of the changes in the new towns over recent years. More than 21,000 new towns houses—over one third of the corporations' stock — have already been sold to tenants. The changes we have proposed to the discount restriction provisions in the Housing (Scotland) Act 1987 will mean that many more new town tenants will be entitled to buy their homes at full discount. The level of home ownership in the new towns has risen from 22 per cent. in 1980 to nearly 40 per cent. today.
      We accept of course, that not all new town tenants want, or are able, to buy their homes. Under part III, they will be able, if they wish, to transfer the tenancy of their present home to a new landlord. Under clause 65, corporations, acting in full consultation with their tenants, will be able to sell groups of houses to alternative landlords. These measures are intended to introduce greater diversity into the pattern of ownership of housing in the towns. In particular, we see scope to develop community-based housing associations and co-operatives in the towns, providing a range of general as well as special needs housing.
      I state quite clearly that no new towns tenant will be compelled, in advance of the winding up of the corporations, to transfer against his or her will to another landlord. If a tenant chooses to remain with the corporation, he or she will retain full security of tenure and statutory rights.
      12 midnight
      Against that background, it would be wholly inappropriate to adhere unquestioningly to the assumption that all remaining corporation housing should automatically transfer to local authorities at wind-up. That is not to say—in answer to the hon. Member for Fife, Central—that we have ruled out any possible role for local authorities. We have given a strong undertaking to review all the options, and to consult the district councils fully on them. Thereafter, we shall bring forward fresh proposals for amendments to the New Towns (Scotland) Act 1968. Obviously, that would be done not in the context of this Bill but much later.
      Mr. McLeish: From the documentation that I have read it appears that district councils have been ruled out as a possible landlord for new town tenants. Is the Minister now saying that the issue will be further discussed with district councils—especially in the post wind-up period?
      Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: We have not ruled out any possible role for local authorities, and there will be a full review and full consultations in due course.
      Opposition Members seek in the new clauses and amendments to introduce prematurely a policy not of choice but of coercion. New clause 13 would require a development corporation to transfer to the local authority all the housing stock that it owns. What happens to those who do not wish to transfer to the local authority? It is not enough to say that they should have exercised their right to buy or right to transfer in advance of wind-up, because not every tenant will have been able to put his choice into practice in that way. The amendments are concerned
      1016
      purely with satisfying the local authorities' hunger for a guaranteed inheritance, and we believe that tenants' wishes should be taken into account more fully.
      I remind hon. Members that no new town will begin to be wound up until 1990 at the earliest. Before then there will be consultation about the wind-up arrangements, including those for housing transfer, and there will be an opportunity for further debate in the House. The amendments would pre-empt that review and debate and would force upon new town tenants a solution that the Government regard as unacceptable.
      Mr. Ingram: The Minister mentioned the moratorium. Let me give him some figures on which to ponder. In 1979, a total of 2,018 new houses were completed by the new towns; in 1986, the number was 157 and in 1987—for the second quarter—it was only 15. That was at a time of growing homelessness, growing waiting lists and growing demand for new town public sector housing, as my hon. Friends the Members for Fife, Central (Mr. McLeish) and for Livingston (Mr. Cook) pointed out. The Minister has said again that the new clauses and amendments are premature. I cannot accept that. There is genuine fear and worry among new town tenants about the Government's intentions. The Minister said that no one will be compelled to transfer his tenancy before wind-up, but he did not rule out compulsion after wind-up, and that is what is worrying new town tenants. That is why they asked the new town MPs to table new clauses to the Bill.
      If the Minister is genuinely concerned about giving the tenants in new town areas real choice, he should give them the option of choosing the district council on wind-up, as set out in the new clause. A refusal by the Government to accept the new clauses will give 45,000 families a clear message. They will never accept platitudes; they want clear and precise answers. I think that they have got such answers tonight. If the Government want to send out a different message and do something to the benefit of the new towns, they should accept the new clauses.
      Question put and negatived.
      Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: I beg to move amendment No. 24, in page 1, line 19, after 'promoting', insert
      'owner-occupation (especially by those seeking to purchase for the first time),'.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss also the following: Amendment No. 135, in page 1, line 19, leave out from 'promoting' to end of line 20.
      Government amendments Nos. 25 and 26.
      Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: These amendments are in the nature of concessions. I undertook to the hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire (Mr. Kirkwood) to ensure that there were adequate provisions to enable Scottish Homes to develop schemes to assist first-time buyers. That has been done. Amendment No. 24 puts it beyond all doubt that that has happened.
      Is respect of amendment No. 135, I am happy to confirm that Scottish Homes will have a major role in the promotion of rented housing as well as in the various forms of owner-occupation.
      In Committee, I made it clear to the hon. Member for Edinburgh, South (Mr. Griffiths) that I would respond to his representations to give Scottish Homes a specific role in respect of ensuring that proper training is available in research and development. Although the spirit of those

      1017
      amendments was in line with the White Paper, their form was not appropriate. We have therefore brought forward these amendments which arise out of Committee points made by hon. Members. I commend them to the House.
      Mr. Home Robertson: I welcome these minor Government amendments.
      Amendment agreed to.

    Clause 2

      GENERAL FUNCTIONS OF SCOTTISH HOMES
      Amendments made: No. 25, in page 2, line 39, at end insert—
      `(pp) promote, provide or assist in the provision of, training in matters relating to housing;'.
      No. 26, in page 2, line 39, at end insert—
      `(ppp) carry out, commission or assist in the provision of, research and development;'.

    Clause 12

      ASSURED TENANCIES
      Mr. Kirkwood: I beg to move amendment No. 127, in page 8, line 45, at end insert—
      '(3) A tenancy is not an assured tenancy if the interest of the landlord belongs to a registered housing association, so long as the tenancy is not one which, by virtue of subsection (4) below can be an assured tenancy.
      (4) A housing association tenancy is an assured tenancy when:—

      (i) the circumstances in which the tenancy shall apply, and

      (ii) the terms of the tenancy

      have been determined by the Secretary of State by order.'
      This is an important amendment and I would like to spend a moment or two putting to the Government the fact that they have now had some time since the Committee stage, when we went through a series of amendments of which this was one. I chose amendment No. 127 to provide a vehicle to allow the Government to let us know the outcome of their deliberations. When discussing clause 12 in Committee, this amendment and the cause behind it were supported by hon. Members of all parties. The hon. Member for Eastwood (Mr. Stewart) and the right hon. Member for Kincardine and Deeside (Mr. Buchanan-Smith) expressed support for at least part of the principle of the amendment.
      The clause to which the amendment relates caused concern among the Scottish Federation of Housing Associations. It suggested a series of amendments that sought to give the Secretary of State the power to determine the terms and conditions of housing association assured tenancies. The matter was discussed in Committee.
      I understand that to a certain extent the amendment has been overtaken by them. I understand that the Government have taken some decisions about what element of private funding taken into account in the joint financing structure can be held to be public or private. The definition of what is public or private has changed. Perhaps the Minister could say a word about that.
      I am less concerned about the joint financing structure than I was in Committee. I am much more concerned with, and want to concentrate for a moment on, the change in the security of tenure that will flow from the Bill as it presently stands. This amendment is trying to press the
      1018
      Government to make changes and give us an assurance that the security of tenants in the housing association sector will be secure after the implementation of the Bill.
      At present, under part III of the Housing (Scotland) Act 1987, housing association tenants are secure tenants and enjoy the same rights as local authority, SSHA and new town development corporation tenants. However, future housing association tenants will be assured tenants under part II of the Bill. That represents a substantial reduction in the rights of future housing association tenants.
      The Government's stated aim in making the change is to encourage private investment in the funding of housing association projects. I stress that there is no objection on my part, or on that of the housing association movement in Scotland, to private finance being brought into the picture, as long as that is not done at the expense of the security and succession rights of housing association tenants.
      We have discussed the way in which secured tenants would become assured tenants. That, of course, would involve substantial reductions in security of tenure. I understand that a series of amendments tabled by the Government would effectively relocate two existing mandatory grounds for possession as discretionary grounds. That is welcome as far as it goes, but we still feel that the Government's proposals, if left unamended, will lead to a substantial reduction in tenants' security of tenure and succession rights.
      The Government's stated objective of diversification of tenure is bound to be struck at unless they accept at least the spirit of our amendments. People will not be encouraged to move from the public sector into housing associations and co-operative housing if the reductions in rights are left in the Bill. There are real worries about that.
      There is still considerable confusion about the increases in rents in general, and about the definition of affordable rents in particular. It would be helpful if the Minister could clarify the matter.
      As the Minister knows, this will be an important issue for housing association tenants in the future. It will affect the way that the housing association movement is able to work in Scotland within the framework of the Bill. I look forward to hearing from the Minister about his consultations with the housing associations since the Standing Committee proceedings. I hope that he has had a chance to change his mind, and to respond positively to the points put forward in Committee and this evening.
      Mr. Home Robertson: Let me briefly associate the official Opposition with what has been said by the hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire (Mr. Kirkwood) on behalf of housing associations in Scotland. We recognise the serious anxieties of those housing associations and their members at the prospect of their being compelled to become high-rent, low-security landlords. We find it extraordinary that the present Secretary of State for Scotland, who keeps claiming credit for establishing security of tenure for Scottish housing association tenants in 1980, should now be introducing a new regime that could seriously undermine that security. Certainly the legislation could undermine the principles and motivation of the housing association movement in Scotland.
      The Minister should recognise that the members and committees of housing associations are, in effect, their

      1019
      neighbours' landlords. Hitherto, a fundamentally cooperative principle has worked behind the housing association movement, but the Bill could change all that. It could tear the heart out of the movement. I am not surprised that the Scottish Federation of Housing Associations has made strong representations to all parties, and especially to the Government, appealing for amendments to the Bill to protect the status of housing associations and their tenants. I sincerely hope that the Minister will respond to those appeals.
      Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: This is clearly an extremely important matter, and I made it clear in Committee that it would be given very thorough consideration. That consideration is continuing. The first step has taken place in the form of very full discussions with the Scottish Federation of Housing Associations, and these discussions have been extremely useful. We have been able to identify precisely what rights the SFHA wishes all future housing association tenants to have, and which existing rights it believes should not be continued.
      The discussions have confirmed that there is a great deal of common ground between the housing association movement and the Government. One result has been that we have been able to bring forward some amendments, which we are to consider later. The amendments will retain the existing tenancy status for all housing association tenants who move from one house to another owned by the same housing association at any point in the future.
      12.15 am
      There are a range of options about the mechanics of securing the rights of new housing association tenants. We are still considering the options. The amendment proposes one set of mechanics, that central Government should determine a standard set of terms of tenancy for future housing association lettings. This would mean that housing associations would have no discretion at all to add to or take away from those terms. There are other options that involve variations both in the degree of statutory control and in the extent of the contract between housing associations and their future tenants, which either side should have discretion to seek to vary.
      These questions of mechanics require careful thought. We expect to reach a final decision shortly, but for the present they remain under consideration. As I have said, we will reach that decision as quickly as possible.
      Mr. Kirkwood: On the basis that the talks are real, will continue and will bear fruit, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
      Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

    Clause 16

      SECURITY OF TENURE
      Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: I beg to move amendment No. 28, in page 10, line 10, after 'any', insert '(i).'
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to consider Government amendments Nos. 29 and 122.
      Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: This group of amendments fulfils a commitment that we made in Committee. We wished to make it clear that if there was a reasonable formula for rent increases written into an assured tenancy agreement, that formula should continue
      1020
      to apply when a statutory assured tenancy arose on the termination of the contractual tenancy.
      My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Perth and Kinross (Mr. Fairbairn) was concerned that the amendment would let any agreements through the net which stipulated, for example, that rent increases would occur at the landlord's entire discretion. These amend-ments are the result of our reconsideration. They tighten up the kind of term relating to rent increases which will continue into a statutory assured tenancy. Only one which specifies a fixed sum or a percentage will qualify. I believe that the redrafted amendments achieve the desired purpose.
      Amendment agreed to.
      Amendment made: No. 29. in page 10, line 12, at end insert
      `; or
      (ii) which makes provision for an increase in rent (including provision whereby the rent for a particular period will or may be greater than that for an earlier period) otherwise than by an amount specified in that contract or by a percentage there specified of an amount or rent payable under the tenancy'.——[Lord James Douglas-Hamilton.]

    Clause 17

      FIXING OF TERMS OF STATUTORY ASSURED TENANCY
      Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: I beg to move amendment No. 30, in page 10, line 35, leave out 'one month' and insert 'three months'.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to consider Government amendment No. 31.
      Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: Concern was expressed that one month allowed for an appeal was too short. We came to the conclusion that it would be reasonable to increase the period to three months.
      Amendment agreed to.
      Amendment made: No. 31, in page 10, line 40, leave out 'month' and insert 'period of three months'. — [Lord
      Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: I beg to move amendment No. 136, in page 11, line 31, after 'above', insert
      `if the tenancy has been brought to an end by order of the sheriff under this Part of this Act or.'
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to consider Government amendment No. 38.
      Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: This amendment simply provides that a rent assessment committee need not continue with a determination of rent for a statutory assured tenancy if that tenancy has been ended.
      Amendment agreed to.

    Clause 18

      ORDERS FOR POSSESSION
      Amendment proposed: No. 32, in page II, line 47, leave out '1' and insert '11A'. — [Lord James Douglas-Hamilton.]
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following: Government amendments Nos. 33 to 35.
      Amendment No. 152, in clause 20, page 13, line 40, leave out 'any of the grounds in' and insert 'Ground 1 of.'.

      1021
      Government amendments Nos. 36 and 78.
      Amendment No. 10, in schedule 5, page 52, leave out lines 23 to 31.
      Government amendments Nos. 79 and 81.
      Amendment No. 12, in page 54, leave out lines 23 to 30.
      Government amendments Nos. 82 to 86.
      Amendment No. 133, in page 55, line 23, at end insert—
      Ground 18
      Suitable alternative accommodation is available for the tenant or will be available for him when the order for possession takes effect.
      Ground 19
      The following conditions are fulfilled—

      (a) the tenant has given a notice to quit which has expired; and

      (b) the tenant has remained in possession of the whole or any part of the house; and

      (c) proceedings for the recovery of possession have been begun not more than six months after the expiry of the notice to quit; and

      (d) the tenant is not entitled to possession of the house by virtue of a new tenancy.

      Ground 20
      Both at the date of the service of the notice under section 19 of this Act relating to the proceedings for possession and at the date of the hearing, at least 3 months rent lawfully due from the tenant is in arrears.
      Ground 21
      Whether or not any rent is in arrears on the date on which proceedings for possession are begun, the tenant has persistently delayed paying rent which has become lawfully due.'.
      Mr. Home Robertson: I am not surprised that the Minister does not want to say too much about this. The debate on this group of amendments gives the House an opportunity to discuss the extension of the threat of eviction that is inherent in the Bill. Amendment No. 32, as I understand it, simply introduces some minor concessions on the part of the Government to extend the discretion of the sheriff whether to grant a possession order against a tenant under the new assured tenancy system.
      The Bill started life with 11 mandatory grounds and a further six discretionary grounds for eviction. The Minister has freely acknowledged that the undermining of tenants' security is a deliberate feature in the Bill, the objective being to encourage private landlords. Apparently the desire to evict tenants is one of the prime motivating forces for private landlords, and it is obviously a motive that the Government are happy to encourage. They clearly want to give them a free rein.
      We highlighted the worst aspects of schedule 5 in Committee and secured undertakings from the Government to reconsider the threat of mandatory eviction for assured tenants on several grounds, which were wide open to abuse by unscrupulous landlords. Accordingly, we tabled a number of amendments which are in this group which was moved by the Minister.
      Amendment No. 9, which subsequently became Government amendment No. 78 when the Secretary of State for Scotland added his name to it, provided for mandatory eviction where a landlord has made suitable alternative accommodation available for the tenant. Amendment No. 10 provided for discretionary rather than mandatory eviction if the tenant was evicted because the landlord defaulted on a loan secured on the house in question.
      1022
      Amendment No. II, which became Government amendment No. 81 when the Secretary of State for Scotland added his name to it, dealt with ground 7. Where the tenant had given notice, we felt that there should be certain circumstances in which that should be discretionary rather than mandatory.
      Amendment No. 12 deals with grounds 10 and 11 concerning rent arrears. We felt that it would be deplorable that a minor lapse on the part of a tenant in paying his rent, which may have arisen as a result of delays in the payment of housing benefit, could lead to mandatory eviction by the sheriff because he would have no choice but to grant possession to the landlord.
      All those mandatory grounds for possession should have been replaced by discretionary grounds for eviction if the sheriff thought that such action was justified. We believe that there should be the important exception of ground 10, because a tenant's security should not be subject to the whim of the landlord's creditors.
      The Government amendments deal with some, but not all, of those points. In particular, Government amendment No. 79, relating to ground 3 of part I of schedule 5, is pitifully inadequate. Under that amendment, it will still be possible for a landlord's creditor to evict a tenant if the landlord defaults on a loan secured against the house. The amendment would mean that either notice was given in writing to the tenant not later than the start of a tenancy and that possession might be recovered on this ground, or the sheriff was satisfied that it is reasonable to dispense with the requirement of the notice.
      In those circumstances, if that notice has been given, the sheriff will have absolutely no option but to evict the tenant. That is wide open to abuse. It will simply mean that some small print will be included in lease to make it very easy in certain circumstances for a tenant to be evicted. That is particularly open to abuse in connection with the landlord's right to acquire public sector property under part III of the Bill.
      I want to give an example of what might happen. A landlord could acquire a property at a low valuation and the tenant would therefore lose his secure tenancy. The landlord might have financd that transaction with a loan from another speculator company secured against the property. Indeed, that might be done under the business expansion scheme, heralded by the Chancellor of the Exchequer in the Budget. The other speculator company might be very closely associated with the institution or individual who is the private sector landlord. The landlord would simply have to default on the loan to allow the other institution—perhaps closely associated with the landlord —to spring the trap and secure mandatory eviction of the tenant and thus obtain vacant possession and a substantial increase in the value of the investment.
      That is a serious possibility and the Government's amendments make no attempt to block such an abuse of the system. Small print in the lease will be no consolation for the tenants who have to face the risk. Indeed, I suspect that the small print could easily turn into a standard part of the drafting of leases under the new system of assured tenancies.
      The Government's proposals for so-called assured tenancies give very little assurance to the tenants. They are specifically intended to undermine the security of the tenants in Scotland today and to increase the threat of eviction. This spectre of dispossession and homelessness will coincide with a dramatic reduction in the availability

      1023
      of public sector rented housing, which might be available, to come to the aid of the homeless in Scotland. The Government's concessions fall considerably short of what Scottish tenants should be entitled to expect from the House.
      Mr. Andrew Welsh: Amendment No. 152, standing in my name, seeks to leave out
      "any of the grounds in"
      and insert 'Ground 1 of".
      One of the great concerns about the Bill is its failure to address the growing problems of homelessness in Scotland. Amendment No. 152 seeks to ensure that there will be no evictions unless suitable accommodation is available, thus avoiding the problem of homelessness or adding to it. The amendment deletes the words
      "any of the grounds in part 1 of schedule 5 to the Act,"
      and inserts
      "Ground 1 of part 1 of schedule 5 to the Act."
      Schedule 5 provides for the adjournment of proceedings, or sisting or suspension of a court order for possession or postponement of the date of possession. However, it does not apply such an adjournment where the grounds for seeking possession are any of those in part I of schedule 5. In other words, it ensures that alternative accommodation will be available.
      Since district councils, under section 29 of the Housing (Scotland) Act 1987, have a duty to provide accommodation for persons with a priority need, the amendment seeks to ensure that only where alternative accommodation is assured will immediate possession be granted by the sheriff, thus removing an undue burden from district councils in providing priority need housing where any grounds stated in part I of schedule 5 would apply.
      By concentrating on ground 1, the amendment really says that there must be no eviction if no council house or other accommodation is available, and that should be seen as part of my other amendment relating to the plight of the homeless. It insists that possession can be taken only when alternative accommodation, either public or private, is available. Eviction can only take place when those evicted can be housed.
      The amendment seeks to guarantee some form of social conscience and responsibility on the part of landlords, since the onus would shift towards proving that alternative accommodation exists rather than creating homelessness and thereby causing another problem for local authorities which may not have suitable accommodation or resources.
      The court order would not be made unless suitable accommodation was available. That should mean that accommodation was truly available, not just in theory. For example, the alternative housing should be adequate, suitable and affordable for the people involved. There is no sense in claiming that a family could move to other premises if the cost would be beyond their means or the premises were clearly inadequate for their needs.
      The amendment seeks to stop people being thrown on to the street by unscrupulous landlords. It would give protection to the poorest and most vulnerable families and ensure fairness in allowing them the right to suitable housing without overburdening local authorities.
      Homelessness is obviously a growing problem throughout Scotland. I understand that last year an estimated 26,000 Scottish families were made homeless. That does not include the single homeless and it masks the chronic overcrowded conditions endured by 1,250,000 people in Scotland. Waiting lists in the district and islands
      1024
      councils of Scotland are growing and house building numbers are falling. All those are factors in the increasing problem of homelessness, especially when one adds changing demographic and social customs and the rising numbers of the young single homeless as a category.
      All those factors will exacerbate homelessness. The amendment is an attempt to do something to meet that problem and assist local authorities in so doing. Surely the object of housing policy is simply to house people, not to make them homeless without a reasonable expectation of being rehoused.
      The Government have turned down amendment after amendment, but I hope that they will look seriously at my attempts to help the homeless. I hope that the Government will accept the amendment and ensure that the courts are used to protect vulnerable families, to house those most in need and not throw yet another impossible burden on to the shoulders of local authorities.
      Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: The Government amendments arise out of a commitment that I gave in Committee in response to representations. I promised to consider whether an element of discretion should be introduced to any of the mandatory grounds for possession in schedule 5. I said at that time that I thought the best case for such discretion related to grounds 1 and 11 — those that provide for repossession when suitable alternative accommodation is available or when the tenant is persistently in arrears with his rent.
      My consideration has confirmed me in the view that those grounds should be discretionary, but it has also convinced me that ground 7—where a tenant issues a notice to quit but does not act on it — should also become discretionary. All the Government amendments relate to the transfer of those three grounds to the discretionary category.
      Amendments Nos. 79 and 82 also arise from commitments that I entered into in Committee — that the notice to be served on a tenant under ground 3 must be served at or before the beginning of the tenancy, and that ground 10 should be amended to make it clear that it applies only when a full three months' rent is in arrears.
      12.30 am
      Perhaps I could also refer briefly to the Opposition amendments which would make one more ground discretionary—when three months' rent is in arrears. In this case, I remain convinced that there should be a mandatory right to repossession. If a tenant is three months in arrears, both when the landlord serves notice and when court proceedings start, he must be deliberately withholding rent, and the landlord should not be expected to carry such a loss indefinitely. If a tenant has no money, presumably he would be entitled to housing benefit.
      Opposition amendment No. 10 would prevent ground 3 from being a ground for possession. So if a landlord defaulted on his mortgage payments, his creditor would he prevented from selling the house to obtain payment, whatever the circumstances. I appreciate that that is a matter of considerable concern, but it would he unreasonable. It would mean that there would be no lenders on the security of rented property, which is the reverse of what we want to see — greater private investment in such property which would help the homeless, directly or indirectly.
      Amendment No. 152 is unacceptable, because it is at variance with the intention behind having mandatory

      1025
      grounds for possession in part I of schedule 2 to the Bill. That intention is that, in the interests of fairness, there should be grounds on which the landlord must be certain of getting possession, and of getting possession within a reasonable time.
      If a landlord has established to the court's satisfaction that he is entitled to possession on one of the mandatory grounds, it is unfair that he might be denied that repossession indefinitely, until the tenant has found somewhere else to live. That could mean, for example, that a tenant with an out-of-season holiday let might not actually have to leave until the holiday season was over. In my view, that would not be an appropriate outcome. There needs to be certainty of possession under the mandatory grounds, and the amendment would destroy that certainty. I therefore resist the Opposition amendments.
      Amendment agreed to.
      Amendments made: No. 33, in page 12, line 4, leave out 'or Ground 11'.
      No. 34, in page 12, line 6, after 'than', insert
      'Ground 11 A or Ground 11B or'. — [Lord James Douglas- Hamilton.]
      Mr. Andrew Welsh: I beg to move amendment No. 150, in page 12, line 8, at end insert
      `; and
      (c) where a defender in an action would, in the event of an order for possession being put into effect, become a person with a priority need in terms of section 29 of the Housing (Scotland) Act 1987, notice of the proceedings has been served on the District Council within whose area the house is.'.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments : No. 151, in clause 18, page 12, line 14, at end insert—
      '(8) Where notice has been given in terms of subsection (6)(c) above, the sheriff shall not make an order for possession unless he is satisfied that the district council on whom a duty is placed by section 29 of the Housing (Scotland) Act 1987 can provide suitable alternative accommodation.'.
      No. 153, in clause 30, page 17, line 29, at end insert—
      'and—
      (d) that the defender in any action for possession would not become a person requiring accommodation to be provided as priority need accommodation in terms of section 29 of the Housing (Scotland) Act 1987.'.
      No. 154, in page 17, line 40, at end insert—
      `(4) Where a case of priority need in terms of section 29 of the Housing (Scotland) Act 1987 would arise in respect of any tenant against whom recovery of possession is sought in terms of this section, the sheriff may, on the making of an order for possession of a house—

      (a) list or suspend execution of the order, or

      (b) postpone the date of possession, for such period or periods as the Court thinks fit.'.

      Mr. Welsh: The amendments deal generally with homelessness, but the clause lays down preliminary procedures regarding grounds for possession in circumstances where local authorities, as the authorities responsible for provision of accommodation for homeless persons in priority need, should have reasonably early notice of the possibility of a demand being placed on their services. The amendment should be read in conjunction with the additional amendment adding a further clause 8 which would ensure that local authorities had reasonable
      1026
      notice and would be given the opportunity to be heard when they had an interest as authorities responsible for the provision of such housing.
      The amendments are about notifying district councils of homeless persons or persons likely to become homeless. District councils have a statutory duty to house the homeless. Therefore, it would be absolutely stupid to allow court proceedings to put people on to the streets without letting the local district or islands council know about potential homelessness as an automatic part of any legal proceedings.
      No delay should be caused by such statutory notification if the landlord does his or her job properly. The amendment should ensure a speedier system in helping to prevent homelessness. No tenant should ever be put onto the streets. The amendment would put the onus on the landlord to notify the district or islands council about possible homelessness. The sheriff will not be able to give an order in favour of the landlord unless such notification has been given.
      It adds one more reasonable stage to the eviction process, positively to prevent unnecessary homelessness, prudently avoiding a very avoidable situation. If councils know the dates involved in the legal proceedings, they can provide for the smooth transfer to accommodation of otherwise homeless persons.
      The amendment is designed to help people and to help councils create a smooth transition out of legal proceedings and conflict. It should prevent the risk of sudden or unexpected increases in homelessness from the private sector. It should help people and councils to plan ahead.
      Amendment No. 151 has to be read in conjunction with subsection (6)(c) and lays on the sheriff a duty to consider the circumstances in which homelessness might arise. Section 29 of the Housing (Scotland) Act 1987 lays a duty on local authorities to provide accommodation in cases where there is a priority need. It is reasonable that the sheriff should be entitled to be informed whether the provision of such accommodation would lay an undue burden on a local authority. Ground I of schedule 5 provides a mandatory ground for a possession order : that suitable accommodation should be provided.
      Amendment No. 153 provides for mandatory orders for repossession, which may lead to requests for priority need housing being made on the district council. Taken together with amendment No. 154, a duty would be imposed on the landlord to provide a certificate of alternative accommodation in such circumstances, or to assure the court that suitable alternative accommodation exists. That would avoid an unfair burden being placed on district councils as housing authorities which would require them to meet demands for rehousing, where short tenancies could be created as a means of priority entry to local authority housing lists.
      The amendment would prevent eviction unless alternative accommmodation is proved to be available, and it would protect the handicapped, families and the elderly. It is a last-resort amendment if the other amendments that I have moved fail. It is the minimum possible that should be done to protect those who are most vulnerable.
      When the Bill becomes law, it is crucial that the most vulnerable members of the community should be protected. To a buyer, housing will be cheap with a sitting tenant, because the district valuer's price will apply. Large

      1027
      profits could be made if the sitting tenant were chucked out. Profit will be a very powerful motive for unscrupulous landlords to evict. The amendment is designed to protect tenants in such circumstances. It offers a measure of protection through the courts, because it would prevent exploitation.
      Amendment No. 154 would bring the powers to be exercised by the sheriff into line with those given in clause 20 and would enable the sheriff to take into account other circumstances when cases of priority need arise. The amendment would allow time in which solutions could be found if there were no immediately available alternative accommodation. The courts would step in to protect citizens who otherwise would be vulnerable to unscrupulous, uncaring landlords.
      Housing policy should be about housing people. The amendments would prevent homelessness and would place the onus on both central and local government to solve problems, not simply avoid them. I regret that the Minister said earlier that he is protecting the landlord by means of making people homeless, thus creating a major problem for the district and islands councils. The amendments would do what the Bill in general does not do. They would provide protection for the most vulnerable members of society and would prevent homelessness.
      Mr. Home Robertson: We have already debated at length the evil of homelessness. and we have tried to impress on the Minister our belief that the Government have a duty to protect people in Scotland from homelessness. The amendments provide some protection for people who face homelessness. It would ensure proper consideration of their needs by central Government, local authorities and the sheriffs. I hope that the Minister will respond positively to the amendments, but I am afraid that his track record is not very good.
      Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: I listened with great care to the hon. Member for East Lothian (Mr. Home Robertson). Certainly, top priority should be given to reducing the number of homeless in Scotland, but the statutory obligation is on local authorities.
      Amendment No. 150 would prevent a sheriff from making an order for possession if the defender would become a person with a priority need unless notice of proceedings had been served on the district council. I believe that the amendment is unnecessary.
      Persons threatened with homelessness are able to apply for assistance from their local authority. They do not have to wait until they are actually homeless before placing their case before the authority. In my view, defenders in actions for repossession will make their circumstances known to the local authority at an early point in the proceedings and there is therefore no need to make provision on the face of the Bill for authorities to receive formal notification of repossession actions.
      I feel that amendment No. 151 is defective. It refers to the duty of the district council to provide suitable alternative accommodation. The duty, of course, is to secure that accommodation is made available. To some this may seem a small point of difference — the difference between providing and securing — but we should not forget that authorities are expected to fulfil an enabling role, rather than necessarily act as providers.
      The amendment refers to section 29 of the 1987 Act. This section relates to the interim duty of an authority to
      1028
      secure accommodation in cases of apparent priority need while it carries out inquiries to establish the applicant's position. The amendment seeks to prevent the sheriff from making an order for possession unless he is satisfied that the district council can provide suitable accommodation. As I have said, the duty placed on the authority by section 29 is to secure that accommodation is made available. Should it fail to discharge that duty the authority would run the risk of an action for default. This is also generally the case as regards its duties to persons found to be homeless through no fault of their own and in priority need. In short, the authority cannot avoid its obligations to homeless persons.
      I do not believe that either amendment No. 150 or amendment No. 151 is necessary, and I ask that they be rejected.
      Amendment Nos. 153 and 154 seek to cover similar cases in short assured tenancies, but are even less acceptable. The whole purpose of the short assured tenancy option is to allow landlords to let property for a limited period with the knowledge that they will be certain to get it back at a certain time. Amendments Nos. 153 and 154 would work entirely against that principle. Since, as I have explained, local authorities have a duty to arrange for the provision of accommodation for those who are homeless and in priority need, these two amendments are also unnecessary.
      For those reasons, I hope that the House will not accept the amendments.
      Mr Canavan: Can the Minister explain to us exactly what is meant by "sist"? What is the difference between sisting and suspending?
      Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: There are a number of lawyers all round me who would be only too happy to correct me if I am wrong. To sist proceedings is to have a break in the proceedings. It means to bring them to an end for a period, at any rate. That is my understanding of it.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: (Mr. Harold Walker): I hope that the hon. Gentleman does not insist and persist; otherwise, the Minister will doubtless desist and resist.
      Mr. Welsh: The hour is late and I shall not prolong the proceedings, but I deeply regret the Government's response to these amendments. They are reasonable amendments which meet a very acute problem that local authorities will face if and when the Bill becomes law. They are reasonable amendments designed to protect tenants and at the same time allow local authorities to perform their statutory duties. Local authorities will have to face the practical reality of persons made homeless thanks to this legislation and will be given no extra resources so to do. These amendments would allow at least extra warning and reasonable time for them to adjust and to perform their statutory duties.
      I regret that the Minister has not been able to accept the amendment, and I wish to press it to a Division.
      Question put, That the amendment be made:—
      The House divided: Ayes 86, Noes 194.

      Division No. 240]

      [12.43 am

      AYES

      Adams, Allen (Paisley N)

      Barron, Kevin

      Alton, David

      Battle, John

      Banks, Tony (Newham NW)

      Beggs, Roy

      Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)

      Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)

      1029

      Buchan, Norman

      McAllion, John

      Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

      McAvoy, Thomas

      Campbell-Savours, D. N.

      Macdonald, Calum A.

      Canavan, Dennis

      McFall, John

      Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)

      McKay, Allen (Barnsley West)

      Clwyd, Mrs Ann

      McLeish, Henry

      Cook, Robin (Livingston)

      Madden, Max

      Cryer, Bob

      Marshall, David (Shettleston)

      Darling, Alistair

      Maxton, John

      Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)

      Michael, Alun

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

      Michie, Mrs Ray (Arg'l & Bute)

      Dewar, Donald

      Millan, Rt Hon Bruce

      Dixon, Don

      Molyneaux, Rt Hon James

      Dobson, Frank

      Moonie, Dr Lewis

      Doran, Frank

      Nellist, Dave

      Douglas, Dick

      Pike, Peter L.

      Eastham, Ken

      Primarolo, Dawn

      Evans, John (St Helens N)

      Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn

      Ewing, Mrs Margaret (Moray)

      Robertson, George

      Faulds, Andrew

      Rogers, Allan

      Fisher, Mark

      Ruddock, Joan

      Foster, Derek

      Salmond, Alex

      Foulkes, George

      Skinner, Dennis

      Galbraith, Sam

      Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)

      Golding, Mrs Llin

      Spearing, Nigel

      Gordon, Mildred

      Steel, Rt Hon David

      Graham, Thomas

      Stott, Roger

      Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

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

      Haynes, Frank

      Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

      Hogg, N. (C'nauld & Kilsyth)

      Walker, A. Cecil (Belfast N)

      Home Robertson, John

      Wall, Pat

      Hughes, Simon (Southwark)

      Wallace, James

      Illsley, Eric

      Wai ley, Joan

      Ingram, Adam

      Wareing, Robert N.

      Jones, leuan (Ynys Môn)

      Wilson, Brian

      Kennedy, Charles

      Wise, Mrs Audrey

      Kinnock, Rt Hon Neil

      Worthington, Tony

      Lewis, Terry

      Litherland, Robert

      Tellers for the Ayes:

      Livsey, Richard

      Mr. Andrew Welsh and

      Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)

      Mr. Archy Kirkwood.

      NOES

      Alison, Rt Hon Michael

      Channon, Rt Hon Paul

      Allason, Rupert

      Chope, Christopher

      Amess, David

      Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)

      Amos, Alan

      Cope, John

      Arbuthnot, James

      Cormack, Patrick

      Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

      Couchman, James

      Arnold, Tom (Hazel Grove)

      Currie, Mrs Edwina

      Ashby, David

      Davis, David (Boothferry)

      Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Valley)

      Dorrell, Stephen

      Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)

      Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

      Baldry, Tony

      Durant, Tony

      Batiste, Spencer

      Fairbairn, Nicholas

      Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)

      Fallon, Michael

      Bevan, David Gilroy

      Forman, Nigel

      Biffen, Rt Hon John

      Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

      Boscawen, Hon Robert

      Fowler, Rt Hon Norman

      Bottomley, Peter

      Fox, Sir Marcus

      Bottomley, Mrs Virginia

      Freeman, Roger

      Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)

      Gale, Roger

      Bowis, John

      Garel-Jones, Tristan

      Braine, Rt Hon Sir Bernard

      Gow, Ian

      Brandon-Bravo, Martin

      Gower, Sir Raymond

      Brazier, Julian

      Greenway, John (Ryedale)

      Bright, Graham

      Gregory, Conal

      Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

      Griffiths, Sir Eldon (Bury St E')

      Browne, John (Winchester)

      Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)

      Burns, Simon

      Grist, Ian

      Burt, Alistair

      Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn

      Butcher, John

      Hanley, Jeremy

      Butler, Chris

      Hannam, John

      Butterfill, John

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

      Carlisle, John, (Luton N)

      Harg reaves, Ken (Hyndburn)

      Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

      Harris, David

      Carrington, Matthew

      Hawkins, Christopher

      Carttiss, Michael

      Hayward, Robert

      Cash, William

      Heathcoat-Amory, David

      Chalker, Rt Hon Mrs Lynda

      Heddle, John

      1030

      Hind, Kenneth

      Page, Richard

      Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)

      Patten, Chris (Bath)

      Holt, Richard

      Patten, John (Oxford W)

      Hordern, Sir Peter

      Porter, David (Waveney)

      Howard, Michael

      Portillo, Michael

      Howarth, G. (Cannock & B'wd)

      Powell, William (Corby)

      Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)

      Raffan, Keith

      Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)

      Raison, Rt Hon Timothy

      Hunt, David (Wirral W)

      Rathbone, Tim

      Hunter, Andrew

      Redwood, John

      Irvine, Michael

      Renton, Tim

      Jack, Michael

      Riddick, Graham

      Jackson, Robert

      Roberts, Wyn (Conwy)

      Janman, Tim

      Roe, Mrs Marion

      Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey

      Rossi, Sir Hugh

      Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

      Rowe, Andrew

      Jones, Robert B (Herts W)

      Ryder, Richard

      Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine

      Sackville, Hon Tom

      King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)

      Sainsbury, Hon Tim

      Kirkhope, Timothy

      Sayeed, Jonathan

      Knapman, Roger

      Shaw, David (Dover)

      Knight, Greg (Derby North)

      Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')

      Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston)

      Shephard, Mrs G. (Norfolk SW)

      Knowles, Michael

      Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

      Lamont, Rt Hon Norman

      Sims, Roger

      Lang, Ian

      Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

      Latham, Michael

      Soames, Hon Nicholas

      Lawrence, Ivan

      Speller, Tony

      Lee, John (Pendle)

      Spicer, Sir Jim (Dorset W)

      Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark

      Squire, Robin

      Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)

      Steen, Anthony

      Lilley, Peter

      Stern, Michael

      Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)

      Stewart, Andy (Sherwood)

      Lord, Michael

      Stradling Thomas, Sir John

      Luce, Rt Hon Richard

      Sumberg, David

      Lyell, Sir Nicholas

      Summerson, Hugo

      MacKay, Andrew (E Berkshire)

      Taylor, John M (Solihull)

      Maclean, David

      Thompson, D.(Calder Valley)

      McLoughlin, Patrick

      Tracey, Richard

      Major, Rt Hon John

      Tredinnick, David

      Mans, Keith

      Trippier, David

      Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

      Trotter, Neville

      Mates, Michael

      Twinn, Dr Ian

      Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick

      Waddington, Rt Hon David

      Mellor, David

      Wakeham, Rt Hon John

      Meyer, Sir Anthony

      Waldegrave, Hon William

      Miller, Hal

      Walden, George

      Mills, Iain

      Walker, Bill (T'side North)

      Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

      Waller, Gary

      Mitchell, David (Hants NW)

      Ward, John

      Moate, Roger

      Wheeler, John

      Moore, Rt Hon John

      Whitney, Ray

      Morrison, Hon Sir Charles

      Widdecombe, Ann

      Morrison, Hon P (Chester)

      Wilshire, David

      Neale, Gerrard

      Wolfson, Mark

      Nelson, Anthony

      Wood, Timothy

      Neubert, Michael

      Yeo, Tim

      Newton, Rt Hon Tony

      Young, Sir George (Acton)

      Nicholls, Patrick

      Nicholson, David (Taunton)

      Tellers for the Noes:

      Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)

      Mr. David Lightbown and

      Onslow, Rt Hon Cranley

      Mr. Alan Howarth.

      Question accordingly negatived.

    Clause 19

      NOTICE OF PROCEEDINGS FOR POSSESSION
      Mr. Home Robertson: I beg to move amendment No. 22, in page 12, leave out lines 35 to 38 and insert 'two months'.
      Subsection (4) provides for eviction with as little as two weeks' notice on certain grounds. The amendment would extend that to a minimum of two months, which would allow at least some scope for a family to find another

      1031
      home. Two weeks is surely grossly unreasonable and inadequate, and I hope the Minister will give this issue some thought.
      Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: We have given careful consideration to this matter following the debate in Committee, and we are not persuaded to change the clause. Here, as elsewhere in part II of the Bill, it is important to strike the right balance between the interests of those concerned. The landlord should be able to regain possession of his property without undue delay, provided he can establish his claim to possession, while the tenant expects to be give reasonable notice of proceedings.
      These interests are not easily reconciled, and we take the view that the notice of proceedings should be longer in some cases than in others. That is why clause 19 specifies two minimum periods: two months for one set of grounds for possession and two weeks for the other set. The grounds, which will be subject to a minimum notice of two weeks, are grounds on which the landlord is, in our view, entitled to obtain quicker repossession. These grounds are, broadly speaking, where the tenant is at fault.
      A two-week notice of proceedings for possession will seldom lead to eviction in two weeks. In the first place, there will usually be a delay between the expiry of the notice and the court hearing. Then, if the sheriff decides to grant possession on one of the discretionary grounds — which, with the amendments which the House has just accepted, will be all but three of the grounds to which the two-week limit applies — he can delay the date of possession as he sees fit. So the Government are not convinced that the change proposed should be made.
      Mr. Home Robertson: The Minister has enunciated the rather alarming principle that always, if in doubt, back the landlord, even if that involves putting a tenant out of his house with only two weeks' notice.
      Amendment negatived.
      Amendment made: No. 35, in page 12, line 35, leave out '1 to 3, 6, 8, 9' and insert '2, 3, 6, 8, 9, 11A'. — [Lord James Douglas-Hamilton.]

    Clause 22
      PAYMENT OF REMOVAL EXPENSES IN CERTAIN CASES
      Amendment made: No. 36, in page 14, line 19, leave out '1 or Ground 8' and insert '8 or Ground 11A'. — [Lord James Douglas-Hamilton.]
    Clause 24

      INCREASES OF RENT UNDER ASSURED TENANCIES
      Amendment made: No. 122, in page 15, line 15, at end insert—
      '(5) Nothing in this section affects the operation of any term of a tenancy which makes provision for an increase in rent (including provision whereby the rent for a particular period will or may be greater than that for an earlier period) by an amount specified in the tenancy contract or by a percentage there specified of an amount of rent payable under the tenancy.'. — [Lord James Douglas-Hamilton.]

    Clause 25

      DETERMINATION OF RENT BY RENT ASSESSMENT COMMITTEE
      Amendment made: No. 38, in page 16, line 2, after `house', insert
      'if the tenancy has been brought to an end by order of the sheriff under this Part of this Act or'. — [Lord James Douglas-Hamilton.]

    Clause 29

      SHORT ASSURED TENANCIES
      Amendment made: No. 39, in page 17, line 14. after 'landlord', insert
      'or, where there are joint landlords, any of them'. — [Lord James Douglas-Hamilton.]

    Clause 30

      RECOVERY OF POSSESSION ON TERMINATION OF A SHORT ASSURED TENANCY
      Amendments made: No. 40, in page 17, line 24, at end insert—
      '(aa) that tacit relocation is not operating;'.
      No. 41, in page 17, line 28., leave out 'two months'.
      No. 42, in page 17, line 29, at end insert—
      '( ) The period of notice to be given under subsection (1)(c) above shall be—

      (i) if the terms of the tenancy provide, in relation to such notice, for a period of more than two months, that period;

      (ii) in any other case, two months'.

      No. 43, in page 17, line 31, leave out from 'relates' to end of line 36. — [Lord James Douglas-Hamilton.]

    Clause 31

      REFERENCE OF EXCESSIVE RENTS TO RENT ASSESSMENT COMMITTEE
      Amendment made: No. 44, in page 17, line 41 leave out from 'below' to 'may' in line 44 and insert—
      'the tenant under a short assured tenancy'. — [Lord James Douglas-Hamilton.]

    Clause 33
      DAMAGES FOR UNLAWFUL EVICTION
      Amendment made: No. 45, in page 19, line 48 leave out paragraph (c) — [Lord James Douglas-Hamilton]
    Clause 35

      FURTHER OFFENCE OF HARASSMENT
      Amendments made: No. 46, in page 20, line 36 leave out 'a residential occupier' and insert 'any premises'.
      No. 47, in page 21, leave out lines 5 to 12. — [Lord James Douglas-Hamilton.]

    Clause 37

      CASES EXCLUDED FROM SECTIONS 23 AND 24 OF RENT (SCOTLAND) ACT 1984
      Amendments made: No. 48, in page 21 line 35 leave out `this Part ' and insert 'section 23 or 24'.
      No. 49, in page 21, line 42, leave out from 'and' to end of line and insert
      `at all times since then'.
      No. 50, in page 21, line 43 leave out 'or a member of his family'.
      No. 51, in page 22, line 15 leave out '(2)' and insert `(1)'. No. 52, in page 22 line 17 leave out 'this Part' and insert `section' 23 or 24'.
      No. 53, in page 22, line 24 leave out 'this Part' and insert `section 23 or 24'.
      No. 54, in page 22, line 28 leave out 'this Part' and insert `section' 23 or 24'.—[Lord James Douglas-Hamilton.]

    Clause 39

      NEW PROTECTED TENANCIES RESTRICTED TO SPECIAL CASES
      Amendment made: No. 55, in page 23, line 38 leave out from first 'same' to 'or' in line 39 and insert 'landlord'. No. 56, in page 23, line 46 after 'available)', insert
      `or on it appearing to the court, under section 48(2)(b) or (c) of the Housing (Scotland) Act 1987, that other suitable accommodation was available'.
      No. 57, in page 24, line 3 after 'satisfied', insert
      `or as the case may be, the other suitable accommodation which appeared to the court to be available'.
      No. 58, in page 24, line 5, at end insert
      ; or
      (d) it is granted in compliance with a direction under section 51(2)(ii) of the Housing (Scotland) Act 1987 (power of sheriff to direct that tenant of wrongfully repossessed house be given suitable alternative accommodation) or in pursuance of section 282(3)(b) of that Act (grant of tenancy upon acquisition by public sector authority of defective dwelling)'.—[Lord James Douglas-Hamilton.]

    Clause 40

      REMOVAL OF SPECIAL REGIMES FOR TENANCIES OF HOUSING ASSOCIATIONS ETC.
      Amendments made: No. 59, in page 24, line 32, leave out from first 'same' to 'or' in line 33 and insert 'landlord'.
      No. 137, in page 25, line 20, leave out from 'same' to `or' in line 21 and insert 'landlord'. — [Lord James Douglas-Hamilton.]

    Clause 43

      STATUTORY TENANTS: SUCCESSION
      Amendment made: No. 60, in page 27, line 20, after `amendments in', insert 'Part I of.
      No. 61, in page 27, line 30, at end add—
      '(5) If and so long as a house is subject to an assured tenancy to which a person has become entitled by succession, section 18 of and Schedule 5 to this Act shall have effect subject to the modifications in Part II of Schedule 6 to this Act.'.—[Lord James Douglas-Hamilton.]

    Clause 46

      INFORMATION AS TO DETERMINATION OF RENTS
      Amendment made: No. 62, in page 28, line 17, leave out from '(1)' to end of line.
      No. 63, in page 28, line 19, leave out 'the order' and insert
      `an order made by the Secretary of State'.—[Lord James Douglas-Hamilton.]

    Clause 53

      RIGHT CONFERRED BY PART III
      Amendments made: No. 64, in page 30, line 10, after `house', insert '(a)'.
      No. 65, in page 30, line 11, after 'tenant', insert—
      ';and
      (b) of which, on that date, the landlord is heritable proprietor'.
      No. 66, in page 30, line 12, after 'property', insert—'of which, on that date, the landlord is heritable proprietor and'. —[Lord James Douglas-Hamilton.]
      1 am
      Mr. David Steel: I beg to move amendment No. 129, in page 31, line 10, leave out 'one-third' and insert 'one-fifth'.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to consider the following amendments: No. 130, in page 31, line 13, leave out 'and' and insert 'or'.
      No. 131, in page 31, line 13, leave out
      `and the Secretary of State is satisfied that an unreasonable proportion'
      and insert 'or one-tenth'.
      Mr. Steel: I realise that at this hour of the morning the House will not wish to have a long debate on the problems of housing in rural areas. If the Government had followed their logic correctly, part III of the Bill would not have applied to the district councils covering the rural areas. The Government have said all along that part III is aimed principally at the large inner city and peripheral housing schemes. Nevertheless, in drafting the Bill, the Government accepted that some special provision should be made for the smaller local authorities in the rural areas.
      When the Bill was first published it contained provision that if a rural housing authority lost one third of its housing stock through council house sales and/or tenancy transfers, the Secretary of State could place before Parliament an order forbidding any future sales or transfers in that district or islands area. Our criticism was that it was left to the Secretary of State to define a rural area and there was no certainty that he would act once the one third threshold had been reached.
      I understand that in Committee my hon. Friend the Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire (Mr. Kirkwood), to whose industry in Committee I pay deserved tribute, moved amendments that sought to define a rural area more precisely or, alternatively, would have obliged the Secretary of State to lay an order as soon as the threshold was reached.
      The Government rejected both amendments as being arbitrary and restrictive. The Committee accepted a Government amendment which, it was claimed, would allow an order to be placed sooner if "an unreasonable proportion" of the transferred houses ceased to become principal residences—for instance by becoming holiday

      1035
      homes. In other words, these houses would be removed from the figure for the total original district council stock used to calculate the one third threshold.
      The problem with that Government amendment is that on closer examination it becomes clear that, however conciliatory the Government were trying to be, the effect of the amendment was to tighten rather than loosen the conditions for the banning of further transfers or sales. That is because the use of the word "and" in line 13, clause 53(6) means that only when the one-third threshold has been reached and an unreasonable proportion of houses have changed usage will an order be possible. If, for example, one third of the authority's housing stock has changed hands but not very many houses have become, for instance, holiday homes, there would be no order. Therefore, a bad clause has been made worse.
      The purpose of amendment No. 130, which I hope that the Minister will accept, is to replace the word "and" by the word "or" so creating an additional possibility for granting an order to prevent further transfers or sales. This would bring the clause in line with the Government's intention as stated in Committee.
      On amendment No. 129, small local authorities are those that can least afford the loss of houses from their council stock, because there is often a paucity of provision in those areas. The one-third threshold is considered to he too high, even though it is a concession not granted to most local authorities. Amendment No. 129 seeks to replace the one-third requirement by a less damaging one-fifth limit. There is at least some prospect that that limit might be reached and some protection given to these authorities.
      The Ettrick and Lauderdale district council has argued with me that by the time the one-third limit was reached, a council's housing capabilities would be too severely weakened for proper provision to continue. I hope that the Minister will accept that a one-fifth statement in the Bill would be much more realistic.
      On amendment No. 131, the Secretary of State's powers under the Bill are extensive, and an example of that is his right to define what is meant by an unreasonable proportion of houses being resold and ceasing to be used as principal places of residence. Our amendment takes out that phrase and sets one tenth as the level at which the Secretary of State must lay an order to prevent further house transfers in rural areas. That also follows the argument that I used in support of amendment No. 130.
      I hope that, taken together, these three amendments will appeal to the Minister as being reasonable to meet the strong objection of the housing authorities in rural areas and will be closer to meeting the Government's intentions than was their original drafting in Committee.
      Mr. Home Robertson: We take the view that part III of the Bill is a totally unwarranted and unbalanced interference in housing legislation, which is simply designed by the Government to enable private landlords to acquire chunks of potentially lucrative and valuable property at a knockdown price from local authorities.
      The right hon. Member for Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale (Mr. Steel) is right to draw attention to the fact
      1036
      that the measure could have a particularly disruptive effect on rural communities in Scotland, many of which have already seen the loss and depletion of a significant amount of their public sector rented housing stock, which makes it far too difficult for local people in those neighbourhoods to rent housing. They find that the housing stock has all been bought up or sold off to holidaymakers.
      The right hon. Gentleman rightly said that this may not be the most appropriate time of night to be discussing the matter. We intend to return to the generality of part III when the debate resumes, but I certainly support the principle behind the point that he makes.
      Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: I listened with care to the right hon. Member for Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale (Mr. Steel), who put his case persuasively, and I hope that I shall be able to reassure him.
      Two procedures must be followed before the Secretary of State can designate an area as a rural area and exempt houses from the tenants' choice provisions in part III. First, as the right hon. Gentleman said, it is a necessary condition that one third of the total public sector housing stock in the area before the right to buy came into effect should have been sold, either under the right to buy or under tenants' choice or otherwise. Amendment No. 129 suggests that the figure should be reduced to one fifth. Secondly, the Secretary of State must consider whether, in his view, an unreasonable proportion of the houses sold have been resold and are being used as holiday homes.
      I know that strong views have been expressed that it would be so difficult to satisfy both those criteria that, in practice, no designation orders will be made. Ettrick and Lauderdale district council was good enough to send the Scottish Development Department a copy of the notes that it made available to the right hon. Gentleman. The provisions in clause 53 and in the right-to-buy provisions in the 1987 Act are more flexible than the right hon. Gentleman or the district council concerned may realise. As I said in Committee on 25 February, the word "area" in line 44, page 30 of the Bill, is not defined. That is deliberate. The intention is that "area" can mean, for example, the full area of a particular district council, such as Ettrick and Lauderdale, or a parish, town or village.
      The first criterion that must be met before a designation order can be made—that one third of the houses in the area have been sold — prevents much less difficulty, given that the area in which the threshold must be reached can be flexibly defined.
      The provisions are reasonably and workable and I give the right hon. Gentleman my assurance that my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State and I will consider carefully any applications received from local authorities for the areas to be designated under the provisions. Each application will be considered on its merits. With that assurance, I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will not press the amendment.
      Amendment negatived.
      Further consideration of the Bill adjourned.—[Mr. Peter Lloyd.]
      Bill, as amended (in the Standing Committee), to be further considered this day.

Televising of Proceedings
Mr. Speaker: I have selected amendments (a), (b), (d) and (e).
1.9 am
The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. John Wakeham): I beg to move,
That a Select Committee of not more than twenty-one Members be appointed to consider the implementation of the Resolution of the House of 9th February in favour of the holding of an experiment in the public broadcasting of its proceedings by television and to make recommendations.
That seven be the Quorum of the Committee.
That the Committee have power to send for persons, papers and records; to sit notwithstanding any Adjournment of the House; to adjourn from place to place; and to report from time to time.
That the Committee have power to appoint specialist advisers either to supply information which is not readily available or to elucidate matters of complexity within the Committee's order of reference.
That Mr. Graham Bright, Mr. Frank Dobson, Mr. Don Dixon, Miss Janet Fookes, Mr. Roger Gale, Sir Philip Goodhart, Mr. Alastair Goodlad, Sir Anthony Grant, Mr. Bruce Grocott, Mr. David Harris, Mr. Robert G. Hughes, Mr. David Hunt, Mr. Eric Illsley, Mr. Charles Kennedy, Mr. Anthony Nelson, Mr. Merlyn Rees, Joan Ruddock, Mr. Richard Tracey, Mr. John Wakeham and Mr. Brian Wilson be members of the Committee.
The House will know already from the almost weekly progress reports which I have been making at business questions since our debate on 9 February that this is not an easy subject. Since the House's decision that in principle it wished to carry out an experiment in the public broadcasting by television of our proceedings and to establish a Select Committee to make recommendations on the implementation of that experiment, there have been extensive discussions about the setting up and membership of that Committee. Although the proposals I have made have received a broad measure of support, it is clear from the amendments that they are not universally acceptable.
One point on which I hope the whole House agrees is the establishment of the Select Committee, following the resolution of the House of 9 February. The House decided then to hold an experiment in televising, and I am sure that no hon. Member would seek to use this debate as an opportunity to reopen that discussion. The time to consider again the experiment is when the Select Committee has reported. Tonight we are concerned just with setting up that Committee.
The first part of the motion in my name would establish a Select Committee of not more than 21 members, with the customary powers of Select Committees to send for persons, papers and records. In addition, the Select Committee would be able to travel, to make reports and to appoint specialist advisers. The second part of the motion nominates 20 members to serve on the Committee. I have put these names forward, having in mind the need not only to balance the parties, as on any Committee of the House, but to take account of the majority in favour of a televising experiment. I believe that all those nominated will do their best to carry out the will of the House, whatever views they may have expressed during the debate, and I am pleased that these nominations do not seem to be disputed by the House.
The original motion in my name, as hon. Members will have realised, provides for the possibility of one more place on the Committee than the number of those it
1038
nominates. Under the conventions of the House for allocating Committee places between parties, this place should go to a member of a minor party. Indeed, a Committee of 21 was put forward with the intention of enabling two members from minor parties to serve. As I said in our debate on 9 February, in response to the hon. Member for Moray (Mrs. Ewing), although I could not discuss the exact composition of the Select Committee, I envisaged that it would have as wide a representation as possible of all shades of opinion in all parties in the House, but I made it clear that I could not give the absolute undertaking for which she asked.
Mr. Dafydd Wigley: If the right hon. Gentleman will refer to Hansard, he will see that he said:
"all parties in the House?"—[Official Report, 9 February 1988; Vol. 127, c. 207.]
It is there in black and white.
Mr. Wakeham: I also said that there would be representatives of opinion and that I could give no undertaking. The proposition that the Committee should include eight representatives from the minor parties would pretty well need a Committee of the whole House to achieve it.
Mrs. Margaret Ewing: Why?
Mr. Wakeham: If the hon. Lady will allow me, I shall do my best to explain why I believe that this is the best way forward.
I had hoped that the two minor party members of the Select Committee would serve as representatives of all the minor parties since, despite their differences on policy, as I believe they recognise, they have some similar interests in this matter. I think that I speak for both the larger parties in the House when I say that we had hoped that the minor parties would be able to agree their representatives among themselves.
As the House knows, that was not the case. On the very day that the motion appeared on the Order Paper—10 March — there also appeared an amendment from the right hon. Member for Lagan Valley (Mr. Molyneaux) and his hon. Friend the Member for Londonderry, East (Mr. Ross) nominating their colleague the right hon. Member for Strangford (Mr. Taylor), and an amendment from the hon. Member for Angus, East (Mr. Welsh) and others adding to the Committee the hon. Member for Caernarfon (Mr. Wigley).
The discussions at least produced agreement in one respect. The right hon. Member for Lagan Valley and the hon. Member for Angus, East and their colleagues joined together to propose an amendment that would allow the Select Committee to have 22 members. That amendment appeared on the same day as the amendment from my right hon. Friend the Member for Woking (Mr. Onslow), which would reduce the size of the Committee to 20—the number nominated in the original motion.
The intention of the right hon. Member for Lagan Valley and the hon. Member for Angus, East in seeking to increase the size of the Committee to 22 is, I understand, to provide places for three Members of minor parties to serve on the Committee. As I said during business questions last week, that is not what it would do. The conventions governing the allocation of places between parties would give that 22nd place to one of my right hon.

1039
or hon. Friends. We would need a Committee of at least 35 for the conventional formula to produce a third place for minor parties.
Mrs. Margaret Ewing: Does the right hon. Gentleman accept that, if my hon. Friend the Member for Caernarfon (Mr. Wigley) and the right hon. Member for Strangford (Mr. Taylor) were appointed, the balance of the House in the context of how the vote was cast on 9 February would not be altered in any way? Why, therefore, must we observe the conventions of the House?
Mr. Wakeham: It is for the House to decide whether to abide by the conventions of the House. Those conventions are long-standing. I believe that the Committee should be set up on that basis, which would produce two members for the minor parties.
As I said, I do not believe that an amendment that produces a deviation from the formula and requires either the Government or the Opposition to give up a place on the Committee would be generally acceptable to the House. I shall therefore vote against the amendment. If the amendment is not approved by the House, it will not be possible for the House to approve as additional members of the Committee both the right hon. Member for Strangford and the hon. Member for Caernarfon. Hon. Members would have to choose between them. I am sure that either Member would be an unexceptional member of the Select Committee, and the House might well not wish to argue their personal merits or claims across the Floor. Certainly, I would not consider it appropriate for members of the Government to favour one above the other. In those circumstances, in my view, the amendment in the name of my right hon. Friend the Member for Woking offers the most useful way forward by reducing the maximum size of the Committee to 20 and we would obviate the need to distinguish between two Members, which many hon. Members might find distasteful.
In saying that, I should like to make it clear that I have consistently recognised that minor parties have a specific view as regards the televising of our proceedings and that we must ensure that there is an opportunity for that properly to be taken into account. I note also that there are particular considerations to be taken into account in the coverage of our proceedings in Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland. But there is certainly more than one way of achieving that. It could be done by having a second representative on the Select Committee, but there is no reason to suppose that submitting formal evidence to the Select Committee would not also be an effective method. For my part, as Leader of the House, I undertake to ensure that parties not represented on the Committee are properly kept in touch with its work.
I know that there is considerable interest in the debate, Mr. Speaker, so I shall draw my remarks to a close. I am sorry that it has not proved possible to reach a generally acceptable arrangement for minor party representation on the Select Committee—
Mr. Andrew Faulds: Would the Leader of the House be so kind as to give the House his views on why both sides have got together to make a composition of this Committee of a quite appallingly flaccid collection of right hon. and hon. Members because they think that, if they do that, they will get this ridiculous and damaging imposition on the House of cameras operating and observing the House in action? Would the right hon.
1040
Gentleman care to comment on the unsuitability of the composition; and what can be done to change it before it is too late?
Mr. Wakeham: I brought this upon myself because when the hon. Gentleman made an almost identical point at business questions a week or so ago I said that I wondered whether he would be here late at night to repeat it. He is here, and my answer is the same. I believe that those nominated by me represent an excellent cross-section of hon. Members, who will do a first-class job. I shall invite the House to approve my nominations in a minute.
I am genuinely sorry that it has not been possible to reach a generally acceptable arrangement for minor party representation on the Select Committee. I am especially sorry if the minor party place, which was intended to be helpful, should become a source of discord. As it is, it seems to me that our priority must be to set up the Committee with as little personal rancour as possible so that it can start its work. For that reason, in addition to the motion standing in my name, I shall support the amendment in the name of my right hon. Friend the Member for Woking and I urge the House to do likewise.
Mr. Speaker: Before I call Back-Bench Members, I think that it would be for the convenience of the House if we had a general debate on this matter. I will put the amendments at the end, when I will ask the right hon. Member for Woking (Mr. Onslow) to put his amendment first.
1.20 am
Mr. Cranley Onslow: I beg to move amendment (a) to the motion, leave out 'twenty-one' arid insert 'twenty'.
I am much obliged to you, Mr. Speaker, for that proposition which I am sure will meet with the approval of the House. I do not want to make a long speech or to enter into personalities because the purpose of my amendment is simply to cut the Gordian knot and let us get on with it. It is undesirable that we should be detained late at night splitting hairs about which minor party has the greater say, or about the personalities who should serve on the Committee. What we really want to do is to get on with setting up the Committee so that it can get on with its work.
I understand that it is desirable that that should be started before Easter and I do not suppose that anyone, whichever point of view they take on the general question of the merits of televising, would dissent from the proposition that we should get on with it.
I very much hope that the minor parties will not feel that in some way they are being snubbed or downgraded. If their experience of this House, which they should value, is as great as I think it is, they will not be denied the opportunity to give evidence. I am fairly certain that they will all come to give evidence to the Committee and will not in the least be inhibited by the fact that they are not members of it. They may be encouraged by that, as may other hon. Members who may have valid views to put, without necessarily having the disadvantage of being members of a minor party because the Committee will no doubt be eager to take evidence from all Members of the House, even from the representatives of the professional actors in our midst.
It is a simple proposition. My right hon. Friend the Leader of the House has examined the mathematics and

1041
the conventions that bind us. It is quite clear that it would be objectionable to establish a Committee of 22; it appears impossible to establish a Committee of 21; so let us establish a Committee of 20 and let them get on with it without hanging about any more.
1.22 am
Mr. James Molyneaux: I beg to move amendment (b), to leave out 'twenty-one' and insert `twenty-two'.
Tonight, unfortunately, we have an example of the House of Commons making a mockery of its claim to being the protector of minorities and of democracy. We are being invited to set up a Select Committee to consider televising the proceedings of the House.
The motion and the first amendment seek to ensure that only two of the four parts of the United Kingdom shall be represented on the Select Committee. Wales and Northern Ireland are to be deprived of places because they are minorities that can be disregarded. Despite its reputation, the House dislikes minorities. They are inconvenient and different, which is not surprising since Parliament continually legislates to make them different.
The affront to parliamentary democracy arises from another phenomenon. This may help the hon. Member for Warley, East (Mr. Faulds), who raised a point earlier. I refer to the cosy relationship between the two Front Benches. England has to be favoured because it provides the elected majority for the Government, and Scotland must be thrown a bone or two because it provides a solid block of Labour sets. For those reasons, the Front Benches do a deal, and consequently democracy bites the dust.
You will remember, Mr. Speaker, that on 9 February, only a few minutes after the House voted for the proceedings to be televised, my right hon. Friend the Member for Strangford (Mr. Taylor) raised a point of order, pointing out that the broadcasting authorities in Northern Ireland had banned the sound broadcasting of our proceedings. He asked for Northern Ireland representation on the Select Committee.
I shall not be so unfair, Mr. Speaker, as to misinterpret your words: they are there in Hansard. You said:
"I am sure that that request will have been heard by those responsible." —[Official Report, 9 February; Vol. 127, c. 288.]
I do not doubt that it was heard, but it has not been heeded. Nor, I fear, will many of our representations and submissions be heeded, any more than representations on many an issue from the Unionists, SNP and Welsh Nationalist Benches have been heeded in past months and years.
I wrote to the Leader of the House nominating my right hon. Friend the Member for Strangford. My request, as we see, has been brushed aside. Not only have the two Front Benches declined to nominate him for a place, but, to make doubly sure, they are now removing the place.
This point must exercise all our minds, and I hope that someone will clear the matter up before the end of the debate. I feel that the Leader of the House has the ability and the capacity to so so. If the subject of the debate were a Bill of vital importance to the Government we would understand and accept the need for the Government to be assured of a majority on the Committee. This Committee,
1042
however, results from a free vote on an issue that cannot possibly affect the standing or authority of Her Majesty's Government. Why, then, do the Government insist on adherence to convention and the ratio on Committees? The divide on the Committee will be between those who are for and those who are against television, not between those for and those against the Government. Even the for-and-against balance would not be upset by a membership of 22. As I understand it, the two hon. Members whose names appear in the later amendments would be on opposite sides of the question. They can confirm that.
On behalf of all three parties, I beg the Government to rid themselves of this obsession with dominating the House of Commons and its Committees. To Her Majesty's Opposition, I say that both they and the Government will lose nothing by displaying a little generosity and a little flexibility.
1.27 am
Mr. Anthony Nelson: The right hon. Member for Lagan Valley (Mr. Molyneaux) has spoken with conviction, and I think that the House will understand his reasons for wishing to press the claim for the representation of his party, and Northern Ireland, on the Committee. As a proponent of the principle of broadcasting, however—the only one to speak in the debate so far—I feel that it is important that I, at last, should state my wholehearted support for my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House.
I do not go along with the right hon. Gentleman's view that this should be essentially a Back-Bench and nonpartisan, or non-governmental, issue. I believe first that the Government have a legitimate interest in the considerations of the Select Committee and their eventual outcome, and secondly that the way in which such affairs are managed in the House involves the usual channels and a certain amount of organisation and understanding—which, I think, has brought us to the point at which we find ourselves tonight.
While the right hon. Member for Strangford (Mr. Taylor) would undoubtedly make an objective and able contributor to the Select Committee's proceedings, he was an opponent of televising, as were the signatories to the amendment proposing him for membership. That would undoubtedly upset the proposed balance of nine to 11.
The House should reflect on the fact that the minority parties have been given an opportunity in the construction of the amendment to get their act together and bring forward a member in addition to the hon. Member for Ross, Cromarty and Skye (Mr. Kennedy) to represent the minority parties. The answer was in their hands. I regret that there will not be a representative in addition to the hon. Member for Ross Cromarty and Skye, because there are special considerations in Northern Ireland and, I say to the hon. Member for Caernarfon (Mr. Wigley), there are particular considerations in Wales. Those considerations are important and should be drawn to the attention of the Select Committee. However, it is a failure of the minority parties, rather than the failure of the House, in not getting their act together and enabling themselves to be put on the Select Committee since the opportunity was generously provided by my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House by facilitating that provision in the terms of his motion.
Rev. Martin Smyth: I voted in favour of the motion and my right hon. Friend the Member for

1043
Strangford (Mr. Taylor) voted against it. Therefore, it would be wrong to draw a red herring and say that my right hon. Friend would be speaking against televising, thereby upsetting the balance because the hon. Member for Caernarfon (Mr. Wigley) takes entirely the other position. We are saying that on the Select Committee there should be a representative from Wales and a representative from Northern Ireland, because, as the hon. Member for Chichester (Mr. Nelson) said, there are particular issues affecting those areas.
Mr. Nelson: I understand the point made by the hon. Gentleman. I believe that whether they be proponents or opponents of the principle, all hon. Members whose names have been considered for inclusion on the Committee will do a workmanlike job within the remit that the House has set and will wish to present a report that will command the respect and authority of the House. However, the complexion of the Committee is important in terms of the respect it can command, not only within the House but outside. Regard has to be given to whether Members voted for or against the principle.
Mr. John D. Taylor: I hope that the hon. Gentleman will accept that, if the two hon. Members who have been proposed were appointed to the Committee and it had 22 members, there would still not be an anti-Government majority. Since each of the two Members proposed holds a different view on televising the House, it would not change the overall attitude of the Committee.
Mr. Nelson: I understand the point made by the right hon. Gentleman, but I do not accept it for two reasons. First, the House has to decide what is a reasonable working size for a Select Committee.—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] That is my view. I have to say that 21 members is a considerable size and, of course, 22 would be larger. Secondly, with respect to the right hon. Member for Strangford, I do not accept the argument that the balance will not be altered. The representation of 11 proponents and nine opponents on a Select Committee will almost exactly reflect the proportions voting when the motion was brought before the House. If the representation were to be increased significantly, the balance would be changed and the House should have regard to that.
For those reasons, I believe that the House would do well to take the advice of my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House. He has had an exceedingly difficult task in trying to strike the right balance and in seeking to take into account the views of all minority parties, the Opposition and opponents and proponents. Therefore, I hope that the House will support his motion.
1.34 am
Mr. Andrew Faulds: We are discussing tonight the setting up of the Committee that is to examine the intention to introduce the cameras to observe what goes on in House of Commons and to convey to the public outside an immediate impression of how we conduct our business. It is really disgraceful that this issue, which is going to involve a change in the procedures of the House and which will affect very gravely the conduct of hon. Members in the House, should be discussed at this time of night. We started this debate at four minutes past I in the morning. Instead of a full House to discuss this issue, we have the payroll vote. That is not much in evidence at the moment, but after midnight when the Government need
1044
it, the payroll vote comes out like worms from the wainscotting, and undoubtedly they will be here when the vote is called.
Of course, we have on our side a collection of the inexperienced, the young Members, who really have not yet learned how the House conducts its business, and many of whom do not frequently utter in the House. They —eager beavers—have turned up tonight either out of their own keenness or because it is a good idea to keep in cahoots with the present leadership of the party because the present leadership of the party thinks that this would be a healthy introduction. These young Members, with their lack of experience, think they are all going to become national stars overnight. With most of their performances, there is not a hope in hell.
I have to say to my very distinguished leader, for whom I have great affection, that if he thinks he is going to become a star overnight he has an unhappy realisation coming to him, as does the Prime Minister, that that camera moving in closely on them is going to expose them in the cruellest fashion for the public to observe how they behave, both of them, in this small, confined Chamber of ours.
We have got to discuss this issue at this time of night because the expectation of the usual get-together of the two Front Benches is that at this time of night there will be less opposition, Members who would want to speak will not be here because they will be in bed—they have got more sense than to be here at this time of night—and of course because most of them who are going to be here are going to be those who will support the introduction of the cameras.
These timings of debates do not happen by accident. We have very subtle operators in the Government Whips Office. We have somewhat less subtle operators in the Opposition Whips Office. They are more easily—I must not use the word "conned", as it may be unparliamentary — they have a predisposition to have the wool pulled over their eyes, and we have suffered the effects of that since last June. There may be, of course, changes in the future. I am not putting myself forward for that sort of job, not with this crowd.
We have to discuss the composition of this Committee, and I think it is quite insulting that the Government and of course the Opposition Whips and the shadow Leader should decide that we discuss it at this time. But I think what is particularly insulting is that two very distinguished members of the minor parties are going to be excluded by the intention of the Government and with the connivance of the Opposition. May I say the inclusion of those two particular hon. Members would much improve the calibre of the suggested membership of this Committee. They have got more backbone than most of the rest of the collection put together.
I did describe very accurately the intended members of this Committee as a flaccid bunch. I do not retract either word, except I can think of a worse one than bunch. But we had, when we went through the farce of the vote about this matter, a 6:1 majority on our side of the House—in the PPL — for the introduction of the cameras. [AN HON. MEMBER: "Hear, hear"]I hear one lone voice at this time of night. Excellent. We have this disproportion of votes, six to one, for the introduction because pressures had been brought to bear on the young and inexperienced.[Interruption.] We do not always get visitations in the Tea Room, as we did 24 hours and 48 hours before this matter

1045
was discussed. But, fairly, the parliamentary Labour party decided that we would have the same proportion on the Committee. Therefore, we have the six Members for and I shall try to be charitable and not mention even their constituencies, let alone their names.
I do not wish to be insulting to one of my young colleagues. Before I make any comment I want to make it clear that whatever I say does not reflect in any way on my admirable young colleague. But, for the shadow Leader to decide, in a clever trick, that he would lessen the opposition, not by choosing my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Perry Barr (Mr. Rooker), who does know something about the procedures of the House and has some experience, to oppose this, or even my admirable hon. Friend the Member for Worthington, who is a procedural specialist—[HON. MEMBERS: "Workington."] He has been a pain in your neck, Mr. Speaker, for many years.
Mr. Brian Wilson; Is that "Worthington" as in, "Don't put your daughter on the stage, Mrs. Worthington"?
Mr. Faulds: I am sorry, I did not hear what my hon. Friend said because this loquacious windbag at my side, my hon. Friend the Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks), never stops talking, so I cannot reply. I am sorry, my hand slipped and my Order Paper has hit him on the head. Oh, sorry, I have done it again.
Instead of choosing even a tired old warhorse like the hon. Member for Warley, East (Mr. Faulds) who does have some knowledge of the procedures of the House, who has been here for quite a long time and who knows the tricks of the media men, that hon. Gentleman must be kept off the Committee. Because any one of those three might have been effective in the arguments in Committee, not in opposing the introduction of the cameras but in seeing that proper restraints were laid; seeing that proper regard was given to the House controlling what was done with our proceedings.
What does the clever shadow Leader of the House do? He plays what I can only describe—I have sent him a copy of a letter that I have written to one of his hon. Friends— as a shabby little trick. He has not only cheated the Committee of a proper membership that could have made effective arguments about safeguards, but he has made life very difficult for a young colleague of ours who should not have been treated with such scant disregard. That young hon. Member will know what I mean in a few months' time when he has had to live through the proceedings of the Committee.
Now I shall finish my speech—[Interruption.] I have sat up a long time and I shall finish my speech, however much I may be interrupted by my hon. Friends who want to oppose my ideas.
We should have an effective membership in the composition of the Committee because what will be decided by the Committee will affect massively, much more than most of the unthinking Members on both sides of the House have considered, the conduct of Members.
We in the Labour party have a new procedure whereby one has to be reselected. My goodness, won't some of our young lads be eager to prove themselves in this Chamber. With reselection coming up, what better could an hon. Member do than mount a demonstration of his virility or
1046
macho-ness as a Member? What will happen to those hon. Members who usually have slight regard for the disciplines of the Chair? Will they be well behaved, better behaved or worse behaved when the cameras come in? We all know the answer to that. The answer is that they will be much worse behaved. We have all been guilty of it, even those sitting near and dear to me.
We shall also find that the effect of the introduction of the cameras will inevitably alter the procedures of the House.
Mr. Wilson: Good.
Mr. Faulds: "Good", some young fellow shouts. The traditions of the House and the experience of the many hundreds of Members over many, many years have produced the procedures of the House. Some young whippersnapper says, "Good", when there is a comment about changing the procedures of the House. The procedures of the House are going to be changed to the damage of the conduct of its business. If most of my hon. Friends on both sides of the House have not considered that, they should start doing so pretty quickly.
Finally, I have to make a comment about you, Mr. Speaker. Your life and your work in the House will be made insufferable. You will be inundated with exercises of display, Standing Order No. 20 applications, and demonstrations such as we had from an ill-judged young Scot the other day. The life of the Speaker in the Chamber and his problems with discipline will be enormously magnified.
When we introduce this —no doubt the Government and our Front Bench will carry this business—when it is introduced, let me give a little advice to the House. The intention of the Committee is probably that we shall have a short-lived experiment. Please, please, do not have a short-lived experiment.
Television cameras are in the House of Lords, recording and reporting what the Peers do and say. The media boys have conducted that experiment with considerable control and responsibility. Once the cameras come in here on a six-month experiment, we will have the same soft-glove responsible treatment. We shall then vote for the introduction of this ghastly innovation. What will happen? The media men will then be off. We shall have let them off the leash. They will do what they want with what goes on in this Chamber. It will not be just the responsible ITN people. It will not be just the responsible BBC people. Satellite, cable and God knows what will have a right to report what goes on in this place. How will they report it?
I urge my colleagues that if the cameras come in here for an experimental period, make it at least a year. Make it preferably a year and a half or two years because in that time those irresponsible people up there who want this place for entertainment and not for information to the public will have managed to forget the restraints that they think will help them to get the experiment carried. We will then see how they will treat this place. Give them their head, let us have a one-and-a-half year experiment. I will take any money with any of my right hon. and hon. Friends that after that long period every single hon. Member in the House will want to get the damn things out again.
1.47 am
Mrs. Margaret Ewing: Not having the theatrical training of the hon. Member for Warley, East

1047
(Mr. Faulds), I shall not try to emulate him, but I shall make two comments on his speech. First, in arguing against the advance of television into this place, he could apply those arguments equally to the use of the written word, and I disagree fundamentally with him. Secondly, I thank the hon. Gentleman for the very strong compliments that he paid to the hon. Members whom we should like to see taking their places on the Select Committee on the televising of the House.
In the light of the remarks of the Leader of the House, I make it clear that no SNP Member opposes the experiment of televising the House. Indeed, we are the only group in the House to record a 100 per cent. vote for the televising of the House. One of the reasons why we were willing to participate in that debate and to advance the cause of televising the House was recorded in the words of the Leader of the House on 9 February in column 207 of Hansard when he gave a very strong indication that the rights of minorities in the House would be observed.
It was interesting that the right hon. Member for Woking (Mr. Onslow) said that the exclusion of minority parties from the Committee would not deny us our democratic rights. I suggest that there is clearly a distinct difference between participating in the discussions of the Committee and presenting evidence. If the right hon. Member for Woking thinks about it, he will recognise that clear distinction. Why should minority parties be denied the fundamental right to participate in this Committee which is to consider what is to happen in this place not just at the end of the 20th century but in the 21st century?
The comments of the hon. Member for Chichester (Mr. Nelson) defy logic. He said that the minority parties should get their act together and that they must not upset the balance of the Committee, but the right hon. Member for Strangford (Mr. Taylor) and I have already pointed out that the appointment of my hon. Friend the Member for Caernarfon (Mr. Wigley) and the right hon. Member for Strangford would in no way upset the balance of the Committee. The hon. Member for Chichester said that the House must decide the size of the Committee—the 20, 21 or 22 issue. The House must take account of the views of hon. Members. The hon. Gentleman said that 11 proponents and nine opponents is more acceptable than 12 proponents and 10 opponents, but I do not agree. Perhaps it is my Scottish education, but I cannot understand the difference between 11 and nine and 12 and 10.
The televising of the House is a new concept, and we should therefore adopt a new approach. The convention is that there should be a Government majority on Committees, but this is not a Government Committee. It is a Committee of the House of Commons. It is a question of democracy because the decision was taken after a free vote in this place.
Mr. Onslow: If the hon. Lady is saying that the Government party is not entitled to be represented in accordance with its numerical strength, why does she assert so loudly her claim, as a member of a minority party and on behalf of the other minority parties, to greater preeminence?
Mrs. Ewing: The right hon. Gentleman misunderstands me. I said that there was a free vote in the House of Commons. Individual Members decided how to vote
1048
according to their conscience, not according to their party Whip. Therefore the Committee should reflect the views of individual Members.
Mr. Allan Rogers: If the hon. Lady follows the logic of her argument, does she not accept that if the vote was on an individual basis there are 630 hon. Members who cannot serve on the Committee? How can she possibly argue for representation according to party when she says that the matter was decided on a free vote? If a Welsh Member were to sit on the Committee, it would probably be a member of the Labour party rather than a member of a minority party.
Mrs. Ewing: I intend to pursue that argument. If the hon. Gentleman had wished a Labour Member of Parliament with a Welsh constituency to serve on the Committee, he should have pursued it through the usual channels, which the minority parties cannot usually use.
I believe that the rights of minority parties are fundamental. Any democracy is judged by how it treats minorities. We may dislike minorities and we may disagree with them. On many occasions I have disagreed with the right hon. Member for Lagan Valley (Mr. Molyneaux), but I respect his right and that of his party to express their point of view.
There should be 22 seats on the Committee. That would allow three minority representatives to serve on it. We ignore the rights and the aspirations of minorities at our peril. History shows us what happens when the rights of minorities are ignored.
It is said that it is a convention of the House that all its rules and regulations should be observed. It has been argued that it is a convention of the House to nominate a Committee. In this case the agreement was that there should be a Committee of 21 members. Yet the Committee of Selection refused to nominate 21. That, I understand, defies the normal convention of the House. It indicates to me that the Committee of Selection was not prepared to bite the bullet. It was not prepared to decide as between the minorities within the House of Commons who should be nominated to the Committee. It seems wrong to use the argument of convention to defend the Government and then attack us because we are looking for a place on that Committee to support our rights.
Mr. Wakeham: To be fair to my hon. Friend the Member for Shipley (Sir M. Fox) and the Committee of Selection, the nominations came from me, not from that Committee, which did not consider these names at all.
Mrs. Ewing: In that case, I make it clear that the Leader of the House was not prepared to bite the bullet and decide which Member should serve on the Committee.
It may surprise hon. Members to learn that one of the suggestions that was passed on to my hon. Friends and the hon. Members on the Bench behind me was that we should toss a coin to decide which Member should be on the Committee. That is a travesty of democracy and justice, and denies the rights of all hon. Members.
I urge all hon. Members to remember the rights of minorities and of individuals, if they are genuinely concerned to make the Committee work so that we can reach the right conclusions on how the experiment should be conducted. There is no way in which the appointment of the right hon. Member for Strangford and my hon. Friend the Member for Caernarfon could adversely affect the balance of the Committee.

1049
I urge hon. Members most sincerely to search their consciences. Do they believe in the rights of minorities or do they not? Democracy is based on the rights of minorities and individuals and that is what our joint amendment is about. I ask the House to support the suggestion that there be a Committee of 22 to take account of all views in the House.
1.57 am
Mr. Robert G. Hughes: I have listened carefully to what the hon. Member for Moray (Mrs. Ewing) has just said. She accused my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House of failing to bite the bullet, but in reality it is the minor parties who have failed to bite the bullet. They were given the opportunity, along with the hon. Members from the Ulster Unionist party, to have a representative on the Committee. Between them they could have reached a decision as to who should represent their interests. They had a responsibility to the people who elected them to ensure that they were represented on the Committee. They have failed; they have not even tried to reach a decision.
Mrs. Margaret Ewing: Ulster Unionist Members did reach a conclusion—that we both have an equal right to serve on the Committee. Does the hon. Gentleman not believe in equality?
Mr. Hughes: I think, Mr. Speaker, that the hon. Lady gives away her point in response to what I said. A decision had to be made. There is such a thing as the mathematics of the composition of the House. We have rights, too. We have a substantial majority of Members. Therefore, we want to be represented. I refer not just to Members who, like me, voted in favour of televising, but those of my hon. Friends who voted against as well. They have rights, too, and they are entitled to representation.
Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones (Ynys Môn): The hon. Gentleman talks about rights. Is it right that these parties should have been totally excluded? There will be many Conservative members, there will be members from the Labour party, but there will be no members of Plaid Cymru or the SNP or the Ulster Unionists.
Mr. Hughes: The hon. Gentleman is quite right. It is not right that those parties should not be represented on the Committee, but it is entirely their own fault and they have only themselves to blame. They should be ashamed of themselves for wasting the time of the House at this hour and for holding up the establishment of this important Select Committee.
Mr. John D. Taylor: Is it entirely the fault of the two minority parties involved in this debate that Wales and Northern Ireland are excluded from the Committee?
Mr. Hughes: All they had to do was to nominate someone to serve. That hon. Member would have been on the Committee already, we would not be having this debate and the establishment of the Select Committee would not have been held up for so long.
I have one more point to make. Members of Opposition parties have said on several occasions that my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House gave a commitment that all parties would be represented. Hansard shows that he
1050
did not make that commitment. What he said has been misrepresented by hon. Members. I shall quote what was said:
"Mrs. Margaret Ewing: Would the Leader of the House expect such a Select Committee to have adequate representation from all parties?
Mr. Wakeham: …I envisage that it would have as wide a representation of all shades of opinion in all parties in the House, but I cannot give the absolute undertaking for which the hon. Lady asks." —[Official Report, 9 February 1988; Vol. 127, c. 207.]
No one reading that could believe that my right hon. Friend was saying that all parties would be represented.
Mrs. Margaret Ewing: Does the hon. Gentleman accept that there are eight minority parties in the House of Commons? Does he believe that one in eight is adequate representation for those minorities' views?
Mr. Hughes: The minority parties have tried the patience of the House on this matter. They must understand that it is their fault if they are underrepresented. They have failed their electorate and the House.
2.3 am
Mr. Brian Wilson: First, I take issue with my hon. Friend the Member for Warley, East (Mr. Faulds) on his comments about my hon. Friend the Member for Barnsley, Central (Mr. Illsley), who is on the Committee on the basis of interest and merit and who certainly does not deserve to be showered with sour grapes by the old thespian himself before the Committee has even been established.
Mr. Faulds: My hon. Friend must really not take on an old timer with such rubbish. I checked: my young colleague, for whom I have great respect, was asked, and did not volunteer, to sit on the Committee.
Mr. Eric Illsley: As the hon. Member in question, may I make it clear that I was not asked to serve on the said Committee?
Mr. Faulds: In that case, I withdraw my observation. That was my misunderstanding.
Mr. Wilson: I am pleased to have been able to perform a conciliatory act.
Some time ago, the right hon. Member for Lagan Valley (Mr. Molyneaux) began the racial myth that has run through the entire debate. He said that bones were thrown to Scots Labour Members because of their predominance on the Opposition Benches. That is patently untrue. A proportionate representation on the Committee would put three or four Labour Scots Members on it— but there is only one, and that is me. I am on it not because I am a Scot, but because I take an intelligent interest in broadcasting and journalism.
Mr. Faulds: An inexperienced interest.
Mr. Wilson: The real nonsense of the selective use of the words "protecting minorities" comes from the Ulster Unionists, who suddenly appear as one splendid, united force to put forward their nominee. As I understand it, at any other time in the House, they do not even sit all on one side of the House. There are popular Unionists and unpopular Unionists; democratic Unionists and undemocratic Unionists—[Interruption.]

1051
For the right hon. Member for Lagan Valley to stand up as the standard bearer of Unionism and say that his purpose in life is to defend minorities is stretching credibility.
Mr. Molyneaux: I appreciate the hon. Gentleman giving way. I hope that his knowledge of Ulster Unionism is not a reflection of his understanding of television and broadcasting, because then he will not serve very well on the Select Committee.
The Ulster Unionists sit on this side of the House and we are united. If the hon. Gentleman had listened to the speech of my right hon. Friend the Member for Strangford (Mr. Taylor) on Saturday, he would have realised that my right hon. Friend has defended the rights of minorities not only tonight but on other occasions.
Mr. Wilson: The right hon. Gentleman merely demonstrates the point. If he is speaking only for the Unionists who usually sit on the Opposition Benches—[HON. MEMBERS: "Always."]—he then does not speak for the Unionists who usually sit on the Government side of the House. The hon. Member for Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley), who leads the Democratic Unionists, does so.
I am very interested in this sudden outbreak of unity. I assume that in the European Parliament they would all sit with Monsieur Le Pen, if they were all that united, because that is where the nominee put forward tonight usually sits.
There are eight minority parties in the House. There is not a member of the Social Democratic and Labour party in the Chamber tonight. The idea that there is a voice for Northern Ireland that would speak in the Select Committee for Northern Ireland strikes me as preposterous. Equally, I believe that the outbreak of unity—
Mrs. Margaret Ewing: Will the hon. Gentleman give way on that point?
Mr. Wilson: No, I will not. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] No, the hon. Lady has had her chance. I am trying to debate.
Equally, the unity of Plaid Cymru and the Scottish National party on this issue rings less than true. I am sure that the hon. Member for Moray (Mrs. Ewing) does not need reminding that if she and the hon. Member for Angus, East (Mr. Welsh) had not defied the wishes of Plaid Cymru in 1979, they might be a big party instead of a small party—[HoN. MEMBERS: "Oh."] I believe that there is a strong case for the hon. Member for Caernarfon (Mr. Wigley) to take his place on the Select Committee because I believe that there is a case for linguistic minorities, apart from anything else, being represented on the Select Committee. But he and other hon. Members on that side do no good for the argument by lumping themselves together as a united party of convenience in order to try to divide the Committee along racial lines rather than along the lines of genuine interest within the debate and along the sides of the House.
Mr. James Wallace: Will the hon. Member for Cunninghame, North (Mr. Wilson) not accept that his jibe about racism was really very unworthy of him, and that in Northern Ireland and Wales, which he has accepted in terms of a linguistic problem, very different issues come into play with regard to television and broadcasting? It is not a racist matter at all. It is a different issue.
Mr. Wilson: I very strongly deny that I said anything about racism.
Mrs. Ewing: You did! This is ridiculous.
Mr. Wilson: What I said, as I am sure Hansard will show, is "along racial lines" or lines of national identity. That is not what the Select Committee is about.
Mr. Wallace: It does involve it.
Mr. Wilson: The hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Wallace) says that that issue is involved. But the precise point is that, because 12 hon. Members come from Northern Ireland, the idea that on an issue like this they speak with one voice—[HON. MEMBERS: "There are 17."]—or that 17 hon. Members from Northern Ireland speak with one voice for Northern Ireland on an issue like this is nonsense. I do not think that the House should fall for that tonight.
This Committee should be formed in the way suggested, and while it would be better if there were two minority party places, if they cannot agree among themselves, let there be one minority party place. There will be plenty of other Committees on which all eight minority parties will be able to fight for the right to have a place.
2.10 am
Mr. Frank Dobson: I welcome the fact that we are having this debate, albeit at such a late hour. I welcome the proposal to establish the Committee and I welcome its membership as suggested by the Leader of the House. I recognise that there are eight minority parties in the House and that not all of them can be represented on the Committee. It will be necessary, therefore, to establish the sort of machinery—and make sure it works—about which the Leader of the House spoke so that the interests of the various countries and regions are properly represented, bearing in mind the different ways in which their broadcasting authorities are organised and work. I pledge that we shall do our level best, whatever the outcome of the voting tonight, to ensure that all parts of the United Kingdom are properly dealt with.
It is equally important that the full range of opinion in the Hoise is reflected on the Committee, for that spread of opinion varies from those who do not want televising at any price to some who would have it at almost any price, with the whole spectrum of views between the two, and I hope that the Committee will represent them all. If those on this side who are not directly represented wish to make representations through Committee Members, they will be welcome to do so, and I have no doubt that the Leader of the House will make provision for that to happen on the Government Benches.
For all those reasons, I welcome the proposal and hope that we will get on quickly so that the cameras can be introduced in October.
2.12 am
Mr. Bob Cryer: Hon. Members in all parts of the House want the Select Committee to report rapidly. To that end, it is to be hoped that its members will not find it necessary to travel here, there and everywhere. For example, there should be no need for them to visit New Zealand to view television there. My fear is that if they went that far they could obtain a world class ticket that would enable them to stop off anywhere en route.

1053
I hope that the Committee will not find it necessary to watch television in Italy, like the members of the Home Affairs Select Committee, or to visit Boston, Philadelphia and other American cities to view television, as the Employment Select Committee Members have done, spending several hundred thousand pounds in the process.
I urge all the members of the Committee to recognise that the issue concerns this House and no other. They should tackle the matter with urgency and resist the temptation — to which virtually every other Select Committee, apart from the Statutory Instruments Committee, has given way—to join the travel club.
Mr. Dobson: I think that it will be unnecessary for this Committee to go abroad. It will have the advantage, over all other Select Committees, of having videos of the televising of other chambers, and they can be seen in this building.
Before my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Cryer) comes over too virtuous, I urge him to recall a recent meeting of the House of Commons Commission at which we agreed to vote considerable funds to permit him to entertain foreign visitors, under the aegis of the Statutory Instruments Select Committee.
Question put, That amendment (a) be made:—
The House divided: Ayes 153, Noes 35.

Division No. 241]

[2.15 am

AYES

Amess, David

Foulkes, George

Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

Fowler, Rt Hon Norman

Arnold, Tom (Hazel Grove)

Fox, Sir Marcus

Ashby, David

Freeman, Roger

Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)

Galbraith, Sam

Baldry, Tony

Garel-Jones, Tristan

Banks, Tony (Newham NW)

Golding, Mrs Llin

Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)

Goodlad, Alastair

Barron, Kevin

Gow, Ian

Batiste, Spencer

Graham, Thomas

Boscawen, Hon Robert

Greenway, John (Ryedale)

Bottomley, Peter

Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

Bottomley, Mrs Virginia

Grist, Ian

Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)

Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn

Brandon-Bravo, Martin

Hanley, Jeremy

Bright, Graham

Harris, David

Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

Haynes, Frank

Browne, John (Winchester)

Hayward, Robert

Burt, Alistair

Heathcoat-Amory, David

Butcher, John

Hind, Kenneth

Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)

Chalker, Rt Hon Mrs Lynda

Home Robertson, John

Channon, Rt Hon Paul

Howard, Michael

Chope, Christopher

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

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

Howarth, G. (Cannock & B'wd)

Cook, Robin (Livingston)

Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)

Cope, John

Hunt, David (Wirral W)

Couchman, James

Hunter, Andrew

Currie, Mrs Edwina

Illsley, Eric

Darling, Alistair

Ingram, Adam

Dixon, Don

Jackson, Robert

Dobson, Frank

King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)

Doran, Frank

Kinnock, Rt Hon Neil

Dorrell, Stephen

Knight, Greg (Derby North)

Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

Knowles, Michael

Durant, Tony

Lamont, Rt Hon Norman

Eastham, Ken

Lang, Ian

Fairbairn, Nicholas

Lee, John (Pendle)

Fallon, Michael

Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark

Fisher, Mark

Lewis, Terry

Forman, Nigel

Lightbown, David

Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

Lilley, Peter

Foster, Derek

Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)

1054

Lord, Michael

Roe, Mrs Marion

Luce, Rt Hon Richard

Rogers, Allan

Lyell, Sir Nicholas

Ruddock, Joan

McAllion, John

Rumbold, Mrs Angela

McAvoy, Thomas

Ryder, Richard

McKay, Allen (Barnsley West)

Sackville, Hon Tom

MacKay, Andrew (E Berkshire)

Sainsbury, Hon Tim

Maclean, David

Sayeed, Jonathan

McLeish, Henry

Scott, Nicholas

McLoughlin, Patrick

Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

Madden, Max

Soames, Hon Nicholas

Major, Rt Hon John

Soley, Clive

Maples, John

Spicer, Sir Jim (Dorset W)

Mates, Michael

Stern, Michael

Maxton, John

Stewart, Andy (Sherwood)

Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick

Stewart, Ian (Hertfordshire N)

Mellor, David

Stradling Thomas, Sir John

Michael, Alun

Sumberg, David

Mitchell, David (Hants NW)

Taylor, John M (Solihull)

Moore, Rt Hon John

Thompson, D. (Calder Valley)

Morrison, Hon Sir Charles

Trippier, David

Morrison, Hon P (Chester)

Twinn, Dr Ian

Neale, Gerrard

Waddington, Rt Hon David

Neubert, Michael

Wakeham, Rt Hon John

Newton, Rt Hon Tony

Waldegrave, Hon William

Nicholls, Patrick

Ward, John

O'Neill, Martin

Wareing, Robert N.

Onslow, Rt Hon Cranley

Widdecombe, Ann

Patten, Chris (Bath)

Wilson, Brian

Patten, John (Oxford W)

Wolfson, Mark

Portillo, Michael

Wood, Timothy

Prescott, John

Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn

Tellers for the Ayes:

Renton, Tim

Sir Anthony Grant and

Riddick, Graham

Mr. Anthony Nelson.

Roberts, Wyn (Conwy)

NOES

Beggs, Roy

Nellist, Dave

Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)

Primarolo, Dawn

Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)

Salmond, Alex

Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

Sims, Roger

Campbell-Savours, D. N.

Skinner, Dennis

Canavan, Dennis

Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)

Cryer, Bob

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

Ewing, Mrs Margaret (Moray)

Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

Faulds, Andrew

Thomas, Dr Dafydd Elis

Forsythe, Clifford (Antrim S)

Tracey, Richard

Gale, Roger

Walker, A. Cecil (Belfast N)

Janman, Tim

Wall, Pat

Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

Wallace, James

Jones, leuan (Ynys M00F4;n)

Wigley, Dafydd

Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine

Wise, Mrs Audrey

Kennedy, Charles

Livsey, Richard

Tellers for the Noes:

McCusker, Harold

Mr. William Ross and

Maginnis, Ken

Mr. Andrew Welsh.

Molyneaux, Rt Hon James

Question accordingly agreed to.
Main Question, as amended, put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That a Select Committee of not more than twenty Members be appointed to consider the implementation of the Resolution of the House of 9th February in favour of the holding of an experiment in the public broadcasting of its proceedings by television and to make recommendations.
That seven be the Quorum of the Committee.
That the Committee have power to send for persons, papers and records; to sit notwithstanding any Adjournment of the House; to adjourn from place to place; and to report from time to time.
That the Committee have power to appoint specialist advisers either to supply information which is not readily available or to elucidate matters of complexity within the Committee's order of reference.
That Mr. Graham Bright, Mr. Frank Dobson, Mr. Don Dixon, Miss Janet Fookes, Mr. Roger Gale, Sir Philip Goodhart, Mr. Alastair Goodlad, Sir Anthony Grant, Mr.

1055
Bruce Grocott, Mr. David Harris, Mr. Robert G. Hughes, Mr. David Hunt, Mr. Eric Illsley, Mr. Charles Kennedy, Mr. Anthony Nelson, Mr. Merlyn Rees, Ms. Joan Ruddock, Mr. Richard Tracey, Mr. John Wakeham and Mr. Brian Wilson be members of the Committee.

PETITION

  Health and Safety Executive (Dundee Office)
  2.24 am
  Mr. John McAllion: I have a petition from the citizens of Dundee and elsewhere in Scotland. It has been organised through the tremendous efforts of one of my constituents, Miss Margaret Malcolm, who has gathered more than 3,000 signatures to date, with more to follow. The petition opposes the closure of the Dundee office of the Health and Safety Executive and calls upon the House to use its influence to persuade the HSE to stop that closure and to retain the office to maintain health and safety standards at work in Dundee and elsewhere in the east of Scotland. I commend the petition to the House.
  To lie upon the Table.

Tin Mining (Cornwall)
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Ryder.]
2.26 am
Mr. Matthew Taylor: I welcome this opportunity to discuss a matter of great importance to all of us who live in Cornwall, but especially to the families who rely on the employment that the tin mines provide in Cornwall. As a relatively recently elected Member, this is my first opportunity to raise the issue of tin mining in Cornwall, and I regret that it should be in such circumstances.
As I look back at past debates, I am impressed by the all-party effort to save what is recognised as a community lifestyle and a tradition in Cornwall that must not be lost. I regret the absence of the hon. Member for Falmouth and Camborne (Mr. Mudd), who, I understand, is unwell and unable to attend. Although he may not agree with everything that I shall say, I am sure that he would join me in regretting the loss of 200 jobs and in seeking assurances for the future of a valued Cornish asset.
Some may question how far the Government are responsible, and perhaps I can enlighten them a little. We are not here to discuss the efficiency of the work force or of the management. If we were, we would hear nothing but praise. Equally, the internal dynamics of the tin market are not the immediate problem. The expectations of 1986 have been largely fulfilled. I understand that the investment programme and productivity and cost-cutting are on target and, although the dollar price remains low, that is not out of line with the projections on which the 1986 package was put together. I hope that the Minister can confirm all that.
Mr. David Harris: Does the hon. Gentleman accept that the price of tin is much lower than most people forecast at the time of the crisis? The price is down to £3,755 a tonne, which is way below what many thought it might be at this stage. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that that is the dilemma facing Rio Tinto Zinc and the tin industry in Cornwall?
Mr. Taylor: If the hon. Gentleman will allow me, I shall answer that point later. The hon. Gentleman has highlighted the fact that something has gone astray. The cause, as I believe that the Minister can confirm, is essentially the exchange rate between the dollar and the pound for a commodity priced in dollars. The Prune Minister's commitment to a free market exchange rate has dramatically increased the company's losses. With the costs wholly in sterling, but with tin traded at dollar prices it is almost wholly that element of the calculations which has gone wrong. There is nothing that the work force or the management could have been asked to do.
The central problem is the Government's decision to allow the pound to appreciate significantly. The Minister will know that the world price of tin is set in dollars, so the effect of the Government's exchange rate policy has been to force RTZ to sell Cornish tin at artificially deflated sterling prices. Equally, the Minister will be aware of the disagreement within the Government about exchange rate strategy.
Even given all that, obvious questions arise. Did the Department of Trade and Industry project exchange rate values in 1986? If so, what were the projections on which

1057
the package was based and—crucial to the future of the mine—on what projections is the new package based? Does the current rescue operation assume that exchange rates will stay at present levels, that they will rise or that they will fall? On what basis is there a prospect of exchange rates allowing continued viable tin mining? If the Minister answers nothing else, I hope that he will put that essential piece of the jigsaw into place.
Whatever the answers, one thing seems clear: RTZ's difficulties and the prospective loss of 200 jobs are due not to inefficient labour, restrictive practices or incompetent management but to exchange rate policy. Had the Government followed our advice and joined the European monetary system this might not have happened. I cannot say that definitely would not have happened, but the stability of the EMS and lower exchange rates would have been of considerable help to the mine. The reality is that the experiment in free market exchange rates policy has affected the viability of the mine. As I understand it from all sides involved in the agreement, that is the key difficulty that has arisen.
I regret that it is not possible, in the early hours of the morning, to get a response direct from the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster. I always welcome the opportunity to hear from the Under-Secretary of State, as I did in my last Adjournment debate, but the agreement has been negotiated line by line by the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster and it would obviously help if he could respond to my comments. However, he is not here, so perhaps the Minister can help the miners in one particular respect, which concerns consultation.
The miners who are about to lose their jobs have a great deal to be angry and uncertain about, and I ask the Government, RTZ and the new management to make every effort now to make amends for the lack of consultation. The work force has not created insurmountable difficulties; it has not brought about a breakdown in negotiations. In fact, at a meeting tonight, the work force again held back from any action that might put the rescue in jeopardy. Cornwall is renowned for its good industrial relations, but there are limits even to the patience of our Cornish miners.
A wage freeze, followed by redundancies, followed by an 8 per cent. reduction in salaries for the remaining work force would in many other parts of the country be a surefire recipe for industrial chaos and discontent in subsequent months, yet the Cornish miners have reacted with restraint. Tonight I was telephoned by a miner who was obviously distressed by what he has been told he has to accept, on which he has not been consulted. He has been offered a redundancy package of £3,300. In 1986 he was offered £4,500 and other miners who have dedicated more years to mining are likely to lose £5,000 to £6,000 as a result of not accepting redundancy when they were fighting for the survival of the mine. If that is what is necessary, so be it, but at least the details could be spelt out, to explain to the work force why it is necessary.
The miners clearly worked hard to save their industry in 1986. They approached the European Community and agreed a freeze in their salaries. They were involved throughout with management, the DTI and their MPs. They feel let down and left out in the cold on this occasion.
In his announcement the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster said:
1058
"Over the past few weeks, I have had several discussions with RTZ and my officials have been holding detailed talks with RTZ and the management of Carnon Consolidated Ltd."—[Official Report, 22 March 1988; Vol. 130, c. 63.]
There is no mention of discussion with the work force or the unions. They were not even told the scale of the problem that was being faced.
While one can understand some of the industrial logic, one must also recognise its impact and the difficulties that it will cause the workers their distress and the feeling that they have been let down, given their past record.
The work force and indeed, most of Cornwall were aware of rumours regarding their future employment, even before the management had talked to them, but even then it was not open to negotiation. There was no consultation at any point with them. The work force should now be reassured—and I hope that they can now be reassured —that there will be negotiations in the future and, more immediately, told just how much room for negotiation they have before the April deadline for agreement.
In particular, we have been told that this is a management and employee buy-out. I ask the Minister to give details in his reply of the 20 per cent. interest to be purchased on behalf of the employees. What rights will the employees have over those shares? Will that give them voting rights in the future running of the company?
I understand that the shares will be held in a trust. As I am sure the Minister knows, the Liberal party has long supported employee share ownership. I should like to be convinced—I am sure that the workers would like to be convinced — that that is what we will see at Carnon Consolidated, but we do not even know the details of the package.
What of those details? Where are they and can the Minister elaborate on them? Also what of the future and the 200 jobs that are likely to go? Is it the case that a total of 200 jobs must be lost, and if that is so, are there no alternative ways of making the cost savings that the job losses are meant to produce? If we are to accept job losses on something approaching that scale, what special efforts will the Government direct to helping those unemployed people? In London 200 job losses may not sound a lot, but in an area of rural deprivation, with opportunities that are few and—quite literally—far between, 200 job losses are a major blow. As the Minister well knows, for every job that goes directly in mining, one or perhaps two more are lost in associated areas, from corner shops to commercial suppliers of the miners.
This afternoon I asked the Minister of State, Department of Employment what special help was being directed to areas of rural unemployment, compared to the sums being poured into areas of urban deprivation as the Prime Minister frequently repeats. He answered:
"my Department is playing its part with other interested Departments".
Later, the Secretary of State for Scotland came forward with yet more special proposals for urban areas. There is a stark contrast between the special proposals for the urban areas, and not much more than good words for the rural areas. The true answer, I fear, is that there is precious little directed specifically to rural areas of deprivation by comparison.
However, it is possible to remedy that, and a start could be made by reviewing the assisted area status boundaries. The Minister will recall that this is the point I raised in our previous debate. I do not propose to reopen the question for the whole of Truro and St. Austell, but I do make a

1059
special plea for the area around the mines, and especially in relation to the United Downs industrial site which was on the verge of success with council backing when the grants were withdrawn. This seems an opportune moment for reassessing that.
It is the luck of the draw that that industrial estate is on the wrong side of the boundary. I hope that the Minister will be prepared to pursue the possibility of reviewing that anomaly, as the Minister of State said earlier that he will look into the matter with his colleagues. Proceeding with such a change would show that the Government are concerned not only for those who continue at the mine, but for the future of those who may lose their jobs. The cost to the Government would be tiny compared to the recent tax cuts or privatisation of Rover or, I greatly suspect, compared to the money that has already been put into the mine.
While the Minister considers his response, perhaps he will tell me whether the Government made any approach to Europe at any stage to establish whether any help might be available from the Community. Surely there may be European funds available both to help the mine and to help those who may lose their jobs. I hope that the Minister can confirm that he has pursued all possibilities and what the response has been.
Above all, I hope that the Minister can elaborate on the Government's long-term view of the future for tin production in this country. Specifically, do they stand by their view in 1986, that tin mining in this country is of strategic importance, and, of course, vital to jobs in my county? I hope that the Minister will reaffirm the Government's commitment to, and long-term interest in, the future of Cornish tin mining.
The Minister may be inclined to respond with a list of previous investments in tin mining, and to tell us that this is not a cut but a saving in jobs. Or he may be inclined to do what he did in the last Adjournment debate to which he responded, and reel off figures for national unemployment and so forth. That is not what we are looking for, or what the work force is looking for. We want specific answers, clarifying what are still many mysteries. The point was made repeatedly tonight at the meeting of the unions.
The fact remains that the joint Government-RTZ agreement for a five-year programme has been stopped short. The exchange rate policy has proved too great a burden. Many angry miners met tonight to ask, why, after their co-operation and acceptance with minimal negotiation, and their struggle to stick to an agreement for a full five-year programme — which they have done — the Government have apparently sold them short in that longterm commitment.
2.40 am
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Industry and Consumer Affairs (Mr. John Butcher): It is customary to congratulate an hon. Member who has secured an Adjournment debate, and who has had the good fortune to do so through winning a ballot. Tonight, I congratulate the hon. Member for Truro (Mr. Taylor) not only on his success in securing the debate, but on being able to follow up so quickly last week's announcement of the management buyout of RTZ's Cornish tin-mining operations.
As the hon. Gentleman rightly said, this has been an all-party issue from the outset. The representations made to
1060
the Department of Trade and Industry—some two years ago, when the original question became a crisis, and subsequently—have been carried forward by members of all parties. Few individual industrial issues have been addressed with such intensity — in terms of time, commitment and concern, and in terms of hard cash—by the present ministerial team at the DTI, and indeed by their predecessors when the crisis came to a head. The hon. Gentleman referred to several of the matters that he identified in his application to you, Mr. Speaker, on 23 March for a debate under Standing Order No. 20, and in his early-day motion 879.
Before I turn to the specific points raised by the hon. Gentleman about the new arrangements, I should like to recall briefly the arrangements made in 1986, which form a backdrop to the current position.
The collapse of the International Tin Council's buffer stock operations in October 1985 led to a rapid drop in the price of tin. Tin-mining companies around the world were faced with some very difficult decisions, and within the United Kingdom Cornish tin operations were curtailed. Several approaches were made to the Department or Trade and Industry for financial assistance to enable companies concerned to see their way through the period of difficulty before tin prices recovered. Attention was focused on capital projects that would reduce unit costs. After careful consideration of several proposals which companies put to the Department, it became clear that only the proposals by RTZ's subsidiary Carnon Consolidated Ltd. offered an acceptable prospect of long-term success.
That was the background against which the then Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, my right hon. Friend the Member for Southend, West, Mr. Channon, now Secretary of State for Transport announced on 8 August 1986 a package to assist Carnon with a capital programme aimed at the reduction of its production costs. That programme was estimated to cost £31 million over a period of five years.
I ask the hon. Gentleman to keep that figure in mind when he talks about the number of jobs that have been preserved, and the number of jobs that we hope will still be preserved. It is an immensely generous settlement, in recognition of the very special conditions of Cornwall and the tin mines, and also in recognition of the all-party support, not least for the strong social reasons put forward.
I think that I can say that Cornishmen have a good friend in the Government, and that our generosity, while not necessarily unprecedented — that would be too strong a word—was certainly considerable.
Mr. Harris: As one who took part in the consultations leading up to that offer, and as the person who arranged the meeting with my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, will my hon. Friend accept from me that without that help there would be no mining of tin in Cornwall today? That is an undoubted fact. Talk about the Government having sold the miners of Cornwall down the river does not stand up to examination.
Mr. Butcher: I agree with my hon. Friend. We start tonight's debate against a figure of 700 jobs. I am sure that the hon. Member for Truro and my hon. Friend the Member for St. Ives (Mr. Harris) regret the potential loss of 200 jobs. However, we would not have had those 700 jobs to consider tonight had we not been so immensely

1061
generous with the package of measures that was put together with considerable support from the predecessor of the hon. Member for Truro, from my hon. Friend the Member for St. Ives, and from our colleagues representing Cornish seats.
The assistance was to be provided in the form of an interest-free loan of up to £15 million, together with Government guarantees of commercial loans of up to £10 million. The commercial loans and the Government loan were to be repaid from the profits to be generated by Carnon Consolidated Ltd. if the project proved successful.
When the scheme was announced, redundancy notices had been issued to the 760 employees who remained at the two mines out of 1,000 or so employed at the start of the tin crisis. The assistance was expected to secure the employment of at least 640 people. In fact employment has continued at a higher level—some 720 in recent weeks.
Both RTZ Corporation and the Department have been watching closely the development of the project and the course of the tin price. The hon. Member for Truro was right to focus on that as a major factor. The capital works envisaged in 1986 have progressed and, as a result, there has been progress towards achieving the necessary cost reductions incorporated in the 1986 project.
The critical factor for the long-term future of the operations has always been the balance between costs and the price at which the mines are able to sell their tin. Regrettably, the sterling tin price has not shown a sustained recovery from the low level of £3,420 per tonne, which it reached in 1986. Having recovered to £4,670 per tonne in December 1986, the price has since fallen back and is currently below £3,800. I have to say that currency changes are on the margin of the totality of that movement. As the hon. Gentleman will appreciate, that has put the business under considerable pressure.
Mr. Matthew Taylor rose—
Mr. Butcher: I am hoping to reply to all the hon. Gentleman's points. I will give way to a brief intervention.
Mr. Taylor: The Minister has explained the fluctuations in the price, but can he elaborate on what the expectations of price were in dollar and sterling terms? Is it not the case that, compared with the projections on which the proposals in 1986 were accepted, the only sanction that is out of line in a major way is as a result of the exchange rate?
Mr. Butcher: I hope to come to that point and to look at the question of stocks and the effect that they have had on the price. I shall do my best to make my own informed hunch—I put it no stronger—on what the pundits are saying might be the expected movement of the price in the immediate future.
As the hon. Gentleman will know, tin ores are found in a number of countries around the world. Some of the deposits are exploited by alluvial methods, which tend to be relatively low cost. Others are found in hard rock and have to be worked by mining methods that are relatively high cost. The Cornish tin deposits are of that kind.
The currency factors flow from the fact that tin is widely traded in dollar terms. The sterling tin price has
1062
fallen latterly in response to movements in the dollar-pound exchange rate. In the longer term a significant recovery in the tin price, both dollars and pounds, is widely expected. The timing remains uncertain.
It is against such a background of tin prices that RTZ has reassessed Carnon's prospects. Moreover, from RTZ's standpoint, Carnon is a small mining operation which has required considerable senior management attention, without showing the potential rewards to merit the continuation of this degree of attention. This led RTZ to the view that the best chance for the long-term survival of Carnon is to be found in the management buy-out proposal.
Both RTZ and Carnon saw clearly that there had to be changes in the scope of the capital programme put forward in 1986 and that steps should be taken to reduce the costs of the operation. This perception led to a period of intensive discussions between RTZ, the DTI and the Carnon management in which my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster took a direct part and committed a lot of hours, personal effort and attention. The outcome had been the arrangements announced last week for a management buy-out. I must make it clear to the hon. Gentleman that cost reductions, including wage reductions, are a necessary part of the project.
The hon. Gentleman has expressed his dismay at Carnon's announcement of the loss of some 200 of the 720 jobs at two mines. We all share his regret at those losses. I hope that he will give proper recognition to the fact that the alternative, had the mines remained in RTZ's ownership, was complete closure with the loss of all the jobs.
The hon. Gentleman also commented on the shareholding arrangements negotiated by the new owners with RTZ. Senior managers of the company, led by its present managing director, are to hold among them 80 per cent. of the shares of a company that is being formed to acquire the present group. The other 20 per cent. of the shares will be held on behalf of employees. At this stage the details remain to be worked out fully, but I understand that the present intention is that the shares will be held by a trust through which, in due course, the employees of the company will be able to share in its prosperity. Meanwhile, it is essential for the company to reduce its own costs of production. To that end the management team has announced that it is cutting its pay by 17·5 per cent., and consultations have begun with a view to a significant reduction in the pay of the continuing work force.
That brings me to the support that is being provided by the Government and RTZ to help the new company on its way. RTZ will contribute £10 million in the form of interest-free loan repayable out of future profits. For our part, we are leaving in place the £15 million loan agreed in 1986. In addition, the guarantees of commercial loans of up to £10 million, which were also part of our 1986 package, are being converted into interest-free loans. Both the Government loans and the RTZ loan are repayable out of the future profits of the business. Our money will be released to the company by reference to capital expenditure incurred. Under the 1986 project Carnon embarked on a capital programme costing £31 million over the five years to 1990. In the new situation there is some rephasing of work and some changes in the detailed content of the programme. Expenditure to 1990 is now

1063
estimated at £24 million. The programme will continue after 1990 and the total is estimated to reach £27 million during 1992.
I should make it clear to the hon. Gentleman and the Cornish community that the changes to our 1986 package are subject to review by the Commission of the European Communities. The hon. Gentleman will understand that in our exchanges tonight we must be aware of this subsequent examination and so he aware of what we say.
I am sure the House will realise from what I have said that this is a high risk venture. The Government have decided, in recognition of the importance of tin mining and the associated employment, especially in Cornwall, that it is right to make their support available in a different way from that adopted in 1986. If tin prices do not come up to expectations, and I have given my informed hunch of current expectations, and if cost reductions are not secured, the long-term prospect for the new venture is bound to be difficult. I cannot see that there could be any scope for yet further Government assistance in that situation.
That is a rather cautionary note on which to end my reply to the hon. Gentleman, but the realities of the situation cannot be escaped. I am sure that the hon. Member and the House as a whole would wish—
Mr. Matthew Taylor rose—
Mr. Butcher: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will allow me to finish. I have two minutes left.
The realities of the situation cannot be escaped, I am sure that hon. Members and the House as a whole would
1064
want to join me in extending their good wishes to management and work force as they embark on this new stage in their company's history. The Government are convinced that Carnon can win through—that is why we have continued our support — but it will require considerable—and I emphasise "considerable"—efforts by all those concerned with the company. I feel sure that this effort will be forthcoming.
Mr. Matthew Taylor: The Minister of State, Department of Employment has said that, with his colleagues, he will look again at the area status. Will the Under-Secretary of State for Industry and Consumer Affairs make the same commitment for the sake of those who now look likely to lose their jobs?
Mr. Butcher: The hon. Gentleman will be aware from earlier exchanges that the Department of Trade and Industry does not have immediate plans to review the boundaries or the travel-to-work areas affected or covered by assisted area status. However, I shall ask my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Industry, who has responsibility for the map and regional policy, to look carefully at our earlier exchanges to see whether they contain anything that is consistent with the DTI's policy on regions and travel-to-work areas. If there is anything that we can refer back to the hon. Gentleman about, I am sure that my hon. Friend will write to him.
Question put and agreed to.
Adjourned accordingly at five minutes to Three o'clock.

ENVIRONMENT

  EC (Non-quota Textile Scheme)
  Mr. Pike
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what money is available for allocation in the final round of bids under the European regional development fund non-quota textile allocations scheme; what bids have been submitted for consideration; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Trippier
  £13·2 million of grant remains available under the textile non-quota special measure, for which applications worth £4·3 million have been received. £37·9 million of grant has already been awarded under this measure.

  Mr. Pike
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what proposals there are for an EEC scheme to replace the European regional development fund non-quota textile scheme on its expiry.

  Mr. Maude
  I have been asked to reply.

  None. However, as stated in my answer on 3 March, at columns 641–42, to which I would refer the hon. Member, small and medium sized firms throughout Great Britain may now apply for consultancy grants under my Department's enterprise initiative. In the urban programme area of Burnley these are available at the higher (two thirds) rate.

  Chlorofluorocarbons
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what information he has on levels of production of(a) CFC 11, (b) CFC 12, (c) CFC 13 and (d) CFC 14 for each year since 1975 in (i) the EEC, (ii) the United States of America and (iii) the rest of the world.

  Mr. Moynihan
  Following is information on production of(a) CFC 11 and 12 and (b) CFC 113 and 114 in the European Community, the United States and globally.

  Kilotonnes

  (a)

  (b)

  CFC 11/12

  CFC 113/114

  EC

  US

  World

  EC

  US1

  World

  1975

  n.a.

  n.a.

  695

  n.a.

  n.a.

  n.a.

  1976

  326

  n.a.

  751

  24

  31

  n.a.

  1977

  319

  n.a.

  703

  24

  37

  n.a.

  1978

  307

  n.a

  681

  n.a.

  39

  n.a.

  1979

  304

  209

  647

  n.a.

  50

  n.a.

  1980

  296

  206

  640

  n.a.

  57

  n.a.

  1981

  300

  221

  638

  n.a.

  57

  n.a.

  1982

  289

  180

  599

  n.a.

  57

  n.a.

  1983

  310

  207

  647

  n.a.

  57

  n.a.

  1984

  322

  237

  694

  54

  68

  n.a.

  1985

  336

  202

  703

  64

  73

  158

  1986

  372

  235

  748

  66

  60

  185

  1 CFC 113 only.

  Sources:
  366
  (i) EC: European Council of Chemical Manufacturers' Federation (CEFIC). No figures for CFC 113–114 mailable between 1978 and 1983.

  (ii) US: 1979–85: "Product Uses and Market Trends for Potential Ozone Depleting Substances 1985–2000" — Rand Corporation 1986. 1980 figures are United Kingdom industry estimates.

  (iii) World: CFC 11/12: Chemical Manufacturers' Association—do not include Eastern bloc countries. CFC 113/114: 1985 figures: Rand Corporation. 1986 figures are United Kingdom industry estimates.

  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what information he has as to sales of(a) CFC 11, (b) CFC 12, (c) CFC 113 and (d) CFC 114 in (i) the United Kingdom, (ii) the EEC, (iii) the United States of America and (iv) the rest of the world, for each year since 1975.

  Mr. Moynihan
  Global sales of CFCs may be taken as roughly equivalent to the global production figures which I am giving in response to another question by the hon. Member. Separate figures are not available for the United States or (since the EC took collective action on CFCs in 1980) for the United Kingdom. Sales within the EC are as follows:

  Kilotonnes

  (a)

  (b)

  CFC 11/12

  CFC 113/114

  1975

  n.a.

  n.a.

  1976

  244

  18

  1977

  233

  19

  1978

  231

  n.a.

  1979

  220

  n.a.

  1980

  217

  n.a.

  1981

  210

  n.a.

  1982

  207

  n.a.

  1983

  216

  n.a.

  1984

  218

  39

  1985

  228

  44

  1986

  259

  48

  Source:

  European Council of Chemical Manufacturers' Federations (CEFIC). No figures for CFC 113/114 available between 1978 and 1983. All figures exclude exports outside the EC.

  Pollution Paper No. 15
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he has any plans to commission research to update the findings of his Department's pollution paper No. 15 of 1979; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Moynihan
  Pollution paper 15, published in 1979, reviewed research on chlorofluorocarbons and their effect on stratospheric ozone.

  The Department now supports a broadly based programme of research into stratospheric ozone; I refer the hon. Member to my replies of 2 November 1987, at column 437, and 17 March 1988, at column 645. In addition, the stratospheric ozone review group presented an assessment of our current understanding (which updates pollution paper 15) to the Department last August. Copies of the report have been placed in the Library of the House. A follow-up report from it is due this autumn.

  Rockwool and Glasswool Fibre
  Sir Anthony Grant
  To ask the Secretary of State for Ihe Environment what information he has on the cancer risks
  367
  of rockwool and glasswool fibre padding; how many houses have this material installed; what steps he is taking to minimise any risk; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  I refer to the reply by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State to my hon. Friend the Member for Banbury (Mr. Baldry) on 1 December 1987, at column 551, on the health risks to householders from man-made mineral fibre (MMMF) loft insulation. Rockwool and glasswool fibre padding are forms of MMMF widely used for loft insulation. They are also used in new buildings for cavity wall insulation. Only limited information is available on rockwool and glasswool cavity wall insulation but this indicates that the risk to health from them is of no more consequence than that from loft insulation. Information from Audits Great Britain Ltd. suggests that at the end of 1986 14 million households at most had these materials installed as loft insulation. The Department has no information on the number of houses with rockwool or glasswool cavity wall insulation. The risk to health from these materials is extremely small, but people handling them are advised to wear a face mask conforming to BS 6016 or BS 2091 to reduce the risks still further. The Secretary of State has published further advice in the booklet "All about loft, tank and pipe insulation," which is sent to persons seeking assistance under the homes insulation scheme.

  Consultancy Contracts
  Mr. Tim Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what was the total amount spent by his Department in 1987 on management and computer consultancy contracts, excluding hardware and software purchases.

  Mr. Ridley
  The Department's financial records relate to financial years. In 1986–87 DOE (Central) spent £5·7 million on management and other consultancies (including computing). The forecast outturn for 1987–88 is £4·7 million.

  Mr. Tim Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what was the total amount spent by the Property Services Agency in 1987 on management and computer consultancy contracts, excluding hardware and software purchases.

  Mr. Ridley
  Expenditure by the Property Services Agency, on management and computer consultancy contracts, excluding hardware and software purchases, in 1987 was £3,572,487.

  Local Authorities (Superannuation Funds)
  Mr. Cryer
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when he expects to table regulations allowing local authorities to charge administrative expenses of superannuation funds directly to those funds; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Chope
  The proposal to charge the administration expenses of local government superannuation funds to those funds was the subject of statutory consultations with representatives of local government and others in 1987. In the light of those consultations my right hon. Friend expects to make later this year the amending regulation effective from 1 April 1986 charging the above expenses to the funds.

  RNAD, Coulport
  Dr. Godman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment of what material the floating jetty for the RNAD, Coulport, is to be constructed; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Chope
  Tenderers are free to make offers using either concrete or steel for the pontoons.

  Chemical Warfare Research (Marmosets)
  Mr. Greg Knight
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what information is available on attempts by the Government of the Netherlands to secure marmosets from the United Kingdom for the purpose of chemical warfare research; and if he proposes to take steps to prevent such animals being exported for such purposes.

  Mr. Moynihan
  The Department has no information on attempts by the Government of the Netherlands to secure marmosets from the United Kingdom for the purpose of chemical warfare research.

  Litter
  Mr. Boyes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what specific proposals and projects are currently in operation to combat littering in the urban centres of the north-east.

  Mr. Moynihan
  Projects currently in operation to combat littering in the north-east include Operation Clean-up at Middlesbrough under the urban programme and Tidy Britain Group's projects on cleaning and renovating the railway corridor between Newcastle and South Tyneside and cleaning areas on the River Tyne, together with a Tidy Up Middlesbrough campaign. The Tidy Britain Group has an ongoing programme to combat litter in collaboration with all sections of the community in all the urban centres of the north-east.

  Rating Reform
  Mr. Butterfill
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment whether he has yet completed his consideration of responses to the consultative paper "Non-Domestic Rates: Amendments to the Rating Legislation in England and Wales", published in July 1987; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Howard
  I have today written to the hon. Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham) setting out the Government's conclusions, including some modifications to the Government's proposals in the light of consultees' views. These mainly concern the power to remit rates on grounds of hardship; local authorities' involvement in the determination of rateable values; the proposed limit on the period in which ratepayers may propose alterations to rateable values; the backdating of alterations to the valuation list; and the duty on local authorities to consult business ratepayers. I have placed copies of that letter in the Library. The changes will be given effect in the Local Government Finance Bill or in regulations made under it.

  Waterways
  Mr. Barry Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment whether he has received a response from the

  369
  British Waterways Board to the Monopolies and Mergers Commission's report on the maintenance of the boards' waterways; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Moynihan
  I am grateful to the Monopolies and Mergers Commission for its wide-ranging investigation of BWB. The board has carefully studied the Commission's report under its new chairman, Mr. David Ingman, and I am placing copies of its initial response in the Library of the House.

  The commission proposed a major programme of changes and improvements, some of which BWB has already begun or identified as necessary, for implementation over the next two to three years. Its recommendations cover the definition of maintenance standards and tasks, achieving the optimum balance between in-house work and the use of contractors or consultants, the development of procedures for project appraisal, the basis for allocating resources to individual waterways, BWB's freight operations, the raising of revenue both from leisure use and from BWB's estate, the management of BWB's direct labour force and salaried staff, and some aspects of management systems and structure. The Government broadly endorse the commission's findings.

  BWB has accepted most of the commission's recommendations and has set in hand the process of management change. Key elements are the development of comprehensive plans for individual waterways as a basis for budgetary control and resource allocation, structural reorganisation, the appointment of new commercial and personnel directors, and the overhaul of cost control systems. I welcome the board's positive response to the report and its commitment to change. I support both its overall approach and the action it is taking to implement the report's recommendations. I attach particular priority to making progress with the recommendations on maintenance and contracting out, direct freight activities, project appraisal, and the management of BWB's estate.

  The Department is liaising with BWB on the development project appraisal procedures, and will review the guidelines on submission of schemes to the Department for approval in the light of the new arrangements. I shall also keep under review BWB's responsibilities for public road bridges over canals.

  Some of the commission's recommendations on BWB's financial and budgetary framework would require Government action. The commission thought it important that the guidance figures which BWB is given on grant levels for future years should be respected. It also recommended that the Government should consider the possibility of relating part of the grant to meeting the cost of non-revenue earning requirements and that BWB should be given an incentive to increase its income from users by being allowed to retain at least part of any such increase.

  These issues need further consideration in consultation with BWB. I recognise that BWB would like as much assurance as possible about future grant levels, subject always to public expenditure constraints. I also attach importance to incentives. The existing grant arrangements do, however, already allow BWB to use all receipts within the same financial year and to carry over to the following year, subject to approval, receipts from the sale of land. Further work is needed to assess the feasibility and practical value of splitting the grant between revenue and non-revenue earning requirements.
  370
  I will make a further statement this autumn in the light of the first substantive report which BWB will prepare then on progress in implementing the commission's recommendations.

ENERGY

  Nuclear Installations (Incidents)
  Mr. Eastham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy whether he has met the Chairman of the Health and Safety Commission to discuss the report "Statement of Incidents at Nuclear Installations".

  Mr. Parkinson
  A range of nuclear issues was discussed when I met the HSC chairman in November 1987.

  Nuclear Power Stations
  Mr. Lofthouse
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what action he intends taking following the Health and Safety Commission's recent publication, "The Tolerability of Risk from Nuclear Power Stations".

  Mr. Parkinson
  The document was published by the Health and Safety Executive. The Health and Safety Commission will be considering the document and comments thereon, including those of the Advisory Committee on the Safety of Nuclear Installations, before formulating its own view. Comments have been requested by 6 May 1988.

  Consultancy Contracts
  Mr. Tim Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what was the total amount spent by his Department in 1987 on management and computer consultancy contracts, excluding hardware and software purchases.

  Mr. Parkinson
  My Department expects its total expenditure in the 1987–88 financial year on management and computer consultancy contracts to be about £283,000.

  Coal Industry Social Welfare Organisation
  Mr. Eadie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy if, when he next meets the chairman of British Coal, he will seek an assurance that the corporation will provide the general secretary of the National Union of Mineworkers, as a director of the Coal Industry Social Welfare Organisation, with details of the number of members of each union in accordance with the memorandum and articles of association of CISWO as amended by Statutory Instrument No. 1225 of 1987, so that individual unions can satisfy themselves as to the fairness of allocation of seats; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Parkinson
  British Coal has provided to the unions concerned all the information required under the amended memorandum and articles of CISWO. That information, including the allocation of seats, was verified by the corporation's auditors as required by the articles. A procedure is incorporated in the articles for the unions to challenge the information provided. None did so.

  Sizewell B Power Station
  Mr. David Porter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy (1) what information he has as to how many contracts for the building of Sizewell B have been awarded
  371
  to date; what percentage of them have gone to East Anglian firms; and what is his estimate of the number of Suffolk residents being employed at Sizewell B;

  (2) if he will make a statement on the progress of building work at Sizewell B;

  (3) what is his assessment of the current and projected impact of the Sizewell B project on the labour market in (a) East Anglia and (b) Suffolk.

  Mr. Parkinson
  This is a matter for the CEGB, and I have asked the chairman to write to my hon. Friend.

  Amersham International
  Mr. Michael Brown
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy whether he intends to exercise his option, under the articles of association, to require Amersham International plc to redeem on 31 March his special rights preference share in the company.

  Mr. Parkinson
  I have no present plans to do so.

ATTORNEY-GENERAL

  Magistrates (Sentencing Policy)
  Mr. Boateng
  To ask the Attorney-General whether, in the light of the most recent Home Office statistics in relation to sentencing and the ethnic minorities, the Lord Chancellor intends to provide(a) guidelines and (b) training to magistrates; and if he will make a statement.

  The Attorney-General
  The magisterial committee of the Judicial Studies Board (which advises the Lord Chancellor on the training of magistrates) has in the last 12 months taken two initiatives to improve arrangements for the training of magistrates in sentencing and the ethnic minorities. In April last year the committee sent to all magistrates' courts committees, which are responsible for delivering training to magistrates locally, the first two in a series of cards to be issued, setting out a structured, step-by-step approach to decision making. One of these cards covered sentencing, and is designed to ensure that all relevant considerations relating to the offence, the offender and other matters are taken into account by magistrates in arriving at a sentence.

  In June last year the committee organised a seminar on training in ethnic minority cultures, attended by representatives of selected magistrates' courts committees. This subject is listed as an approved subject in the training syllabus, so it may be included by magistrates' courts committees in a training programme without prior application to the Lord Chancellor for approval. The seminar has been a stimulus to action and such training is increasingly being provided to magistrates.

  Consultancy Contracts
  Mr. Tim Smith
  To ask the Attorney-General what was the total amount spent by his office in 1987 on management and computer consultancy contracts, excluding hardware and software purchases.

  The Attorney-General
  Nil.

  Mr. Tim Smith
  To ask the Attorney-General what was the total amount spent by the Lord Chancellor's Department in 1987 on management and computer consultancy contracts, excluding hardware and software purchases.
  372
  The Attorney-General
  The total amount spent by the Lord Chancellor's Department in this financial year on management and computer consultancy, excluding hardware and software purchases, is £348,593·75.

  Mr. Tim Smith
  To ask the Attorney-General what was the total amount spent by Her Majesty's Land Registry in 1987 on management and computer consultancy contracts, excluding hardware and software purchases.

  The Attorney-General
  The sum spent by Her Majesty's Land Registry on management and computer consultancy contracts in 1987 was £487·02.

  PRIME MINISTER
  Mr. Teddy Taylor
  To ask the Prime Minister if she will raise at the next meeting of the European Council the size of the United Kingdom's trade deficit with the EEC; and if she will make a statement.

  The Prime Minister
  No. The EC is our largest market, which takes about 50 per cent. of our exports; it is up to United Kingdom exporters to take further advantage of the market of 320 million people that the EC provides. The removal of remaining barriers to trade leading to the achievement of a single market in 1992 will afford plenty of opportunities to do so.

  Mr. Norman Hogg
  To ask the Prime Minister whether she has any plans to visit Scotland.

  The Prime Minister
  Yes.

  China (Ministerial Visits)
  Mr. Fisher
  To ask the Prime Minister whether she will list the Ministers who have paid official visits to China in each of the last five years and the year of each such visit.

  The Prime Minister
  According to the Foreign and Commonwealth Office's records, the information requested is as follows:

  January:—The right hon. Patrick Jenkin, MP, Secretary of State for Industry.

  November:— The right hon. Peter Walker, MBE, MP, Secretary of State for Energy.

  March:—The right hon. Paul Channon, MP, Minister for Trade.

  April:—The right hon. Sir Geoffrey Howe, QC, MP, Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs.

  July:—The right hon. Sir Geoffrey Howe, QC, MP, Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs.

  December:—Mr. A. Buchanan-Smith, MP, Minister of State, Department of Energy.

  The right hon. Margaret Thatcher, FRS, MP, Prime Minister.

  The right hon. Sir Geoffrey Howe, QC, MP, Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs.

  March:—The right hon. Lord Young of Graffham, Minister without Portfolio, and trade delegation.

  September:—The right hon. Nicholas Ridley, MP, Secretary of State for Transport.

  November:—The right hon. Michael Jopling, MP, Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food.

  December:— The right hon. Lord Young of Graffham, Secretary of State for Employment.

  373

  January: —Mr. Timothy Renton, MP, Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office.

  April:—Mr. Norman Lamont, MP, Minister of State for Defence Procurement.

  The right hon. Richard Luce, MP, Minister for the Arts.

  July:—The right hon. Timothy Raison, MP, Minister for Overseas Development.

  October:—State Visit by Her Majesty The Queen, accompanied by the right hon. Sir Geoffrey Howe, QC, MP, Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs.

  November:— The right hon. Lord Young of Graffham, Secretary of State for Employment.

  Mr. George Walden, CMG, MP, Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education and Science.

  May:— Mr. Michael Spicer. MP, Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport.

  September:—The Lord Skelmersdale, Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Security.

  October:—The right hon. Lord Young of Graffham, Secretary of State for Trade and Industry.

  Consultancy Contracts
  Mr. Tim Smith
  To ask the Prime Minister what was the total amount spent by the Cabinet Office in 1987 on management and computer consultancy contracts, excluding hardware and software purchases.

  The Prime Minister
  The total amount spent by the Cabinet Office on management and computer consultancy contracts, excluding hardware and software purchases, during the calendar year 1987, was £355,000.

  Litter Collection (St. James' Park)
  Mr. Nellist
  To ask the Prime Minister what was the cost to public funds of the dispersal of litter in St. James' park on Tuesday 22 March, prior to her attendance; and on which vote this expenditure will be borne.

  The Prime Minister
  I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply I gave to the hon. Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks) on 28 March, at column 280. The cost of less than £60 will be met from the Department of the Environment's provision for expenditure on the royal parks (class X, vote 4).

  Interception of Communications Act 1985
  Mr. Wheeler
  To ask the Prime Minister when the commissioner appointed under the Interception of Communications Act 1985 will present his annual report; and if she will make a statement.

  The Prime Minister
  A copy of the 1987 annual report by Lord Justice Lloyd has been laid before the House today in accordance with section 8(7) of the Interception of Communications Act 1985. The confidential appendix to the report has been excluded from that copy in accordance with section 8(8) of the Interception of Communications Act 1985. I am grateful to the commissioner for his work on the report and the reassurance it contains, that care is taken by all concerned to observe not only the letter but also the spirit of the Act. The commissioner's report suggests a small number of improvements to the procedures observed in dealing with these cases. Careful consideration is being given to ways of implementing these suggestions.

  Engagements
  Mr. Harry Greenway
  To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 29 March.

  Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones
  To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 29 March.

  Mr. Pike
  To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 29 March.

  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 29 March.

  Mr. Stern
  To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 29 March.

  Mr. Wareing
  To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 29 March.

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

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Electrical Installations (Safety)
  Mr. Thurnham
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what recent representations he has received about safety standards for electrical installations; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Butcher
  I regularly receive correspondence from colleagues, trade associations and members of the public concerning safety standards for electrical installations, most recently arising from the exhibition on safety and electricity presented by the Electrical Contractors Association in the Upper Waiting Hall between 2 and 6 November last, arranged by my hon. Friend.

  In response to these inquiries, I have welcomed the efforts to promote greater awareness of the dangers of electricity and the potential hazards arising from the misuse of electrical equipment. In order to emphasise the importance of this area, my own Department, in collaboration with the industry, will shortly be launching an electrical safety canpaign with the specific aim of heightening people's awareness of the benefits to be gained by the installation of residual current devices in providing additional protection against electric shocks.

  Telecommunications Industry
  Mr. Anthony Coombs
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what information he has as to(a) the number of employees in the British telecommunications industry per telephone subscriber and (b) the comparable figure for West Germany and France.

  Mr. Butcher
  The latest edition of the "International Telecommunication Union's Yearbook of Common Carrier Telecommunication Statistics" gives the following information:
  375

  Total staff in telecommunication services

  Main lines (telephone exchange connections)

  United Kingdom (British Telecom) 31 March 1986

  230,197

  21,653,639

  Germany (Federal Republic) (Bundesministerium fur das Post-und Fernmeldewesen) 31 December 1985

  212,364

  25,588,585

  376

  Total staff in telecommunication services

  Main lines (telephone exchange connections)

  France (Direction generate des telecommunications) 31 December 1985

  166,788

  23,031,972

  Direct comparison of such figures can be misleading as different operators offer different services whilst the amount of sub-contracted work also differs. A comparison of prices charged suggests that for typical telephone use United Kingdom prices are at least in line with France and Germany.

  China
  Mr. Fisher
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (1) what has been the level of United Kingdom exports to China in each of the last five years in(a) records, (b) television programmes and (c) films;

  (2) what has been the level of (a) exports to and (b) imports from China in manufactured goods in each of the last five years;

  (3) what has been the level of (a) exports to and (b) imports from China in each of the last five years;

  (4) whether he will list the five industries which have exported goods or services to the highest value to China in each of the last five years;

  United Kingdom trade with China 1983 to 1987

  I—Total trade and trade in manufactured goods

  £ million

  1983

  1984

  1985

  1986

  January to December 1987

  Total exports

  160·3

  317·3

  396·5

  535·9

  416·0

  Of which:

  Manufactured goods

  136·1

  308·3

  369·4

  511·7

  391·1

  Total imports

  231·4

  278·4

  308·0

  327·0

  391·8

  Of which:

  Manfactured goods

  132·5

  163·0

  171·4

  185·3

  270·3

  II—Analysis of exports by SITC R2 divisions equating to broad industrial sectors

  £ million

  Division (s)

  1983

  1984

  1985

  1986

  January to December 1987

  71–14 (Industrial machinery and plant)

  27·2

  74·7

  132·0

  209·4

  148·6

  78–79 (Transport)

  9·6

  12·4

  50·3

  62·4

  72·5

  67 (Iron and steel)

  11·1

  15·3

  44·8

  41·5

  38·7

  87 (Professional and scientific instruments)

  18·0

  41·0

  35·7

  33·4

  36·3

  Section 5 (Chemical)

  31·5

  35·2

  42·6

  38·0

  35·4

  III—United Kingdom exports of books, records, videos and films

  £ thousand

  1983

  1984

  1985

  1986

  January to December 1987

  Books

  414

  937

  507

  343

  808

  Records

  6

  9

  —

  —

  0

  Recorded videos

  2

  8

  20

  6

  4

  Developed cinematographic films

  9

  42

  26

  11

  11

  Source: Overseas Trade Statistics.

  Notes:

  1. 1987 figures provisional.

  2. Manfactured goods are defined as sections 5 to 8 of the standard international trade classification revision 2 (SITC R2):

  3. Books are defined as United Kingdom tariff headings 4901 0010 and 4903 0000:

  4. Records are defined as United Kingdom tariff headings 9212 3400, 3510 and 3599:

  5. Recorded videos are defined as United Kingdom tariff heading 9212 3950:

  6. Films are defined as SITC R2 item 883.00.

  Mr. Fisher
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster whether he will list the number of trade delegations to China that his Department has supported in each of the last five years.

  Mr. Alan Clark
  The numbers of outward missions to China supported by the Department for the period were:

  Number

  1983

  3

  1984

  8

  378
  (5) what has been the level of United Kingdom exports of books to China in each of the last five years.

  Mr. Alan Clark
  Information on the value of exported goods to China by industries, as defined in the standard industrial classification, is not available: figures have been compiled using standard international trade classification revision 2 divisions equating to the broad industrial sectors. Information on the value of services and the "performance fee" value of television programmes and films exported to China is not available. Television programmes are not identified in the Overseas Trade Statistics; figures for recorded videos have been provided and may include television programmes. The available information is given in the following tables:

  Number

  1985

  7

  1986

  12

  1987

  7

  Total

  37

  In addition, the Department supported 14 seminars in China over the same period:

  379

  Number

  1983

  None

  1984

  4

  1985

  1

  1986

  4

  1987

  5

  Mr. Fisher
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster how many United Kingdom companies have established joint ventures in China in each of the last five years.

  Opening Date

  City

  Title

  1983–84

  12 April 1983

  Shanghai

  Multinational Instrumentation Conference and Exhibition

  18 July 1983

  Shanghai

  Naval Technology and Shipboard Electronic Defence Equipment Show

  26 August 1983

  Guangzhou

  International Telecommunications Scientific and Technical Expo Conference

  21 October 1983

  Shanghai

  International Marine Equipment Show (Marintec)

  7 November 1983

  Shanghai

  International Congress and Exhibition on Heat Treatment.

  22 November 1983

  Guangzhou

  Offshore Oil Exhibition and Conference

  20 February 1984

  Tianjin

  All-British Scientific Instruments Exhibition/Seminar

  27 February 1984

  Peking

  Multi-Nation Medical Equipment and Instrument Exhibition

  1984–85

  5 April 1984

  Beijing

  International Electronic Production Conference

  10 June 1984

  Shanghai

  International Exhibition on Textiles

  17 September 1984

  Shanghai

  International Exhibition of Rubber and Plastics Industries

  9 October 1984

  Shanghai

  International Environmental Control Measuring and Testing Equipment

  30 October 1984

  Beijing

  International Tourism and Hotel Facilities Exhibition

  30 October 1984

  Beijing

  Beijing International Printing Technology Exhibition

  5 November 1984

  Beijing

  International Telecommunications, Computer and Electronics Exhibition and Conference

  19 November 1984

  Hangzhou

  International Food Processing and Packaging Equipment Exhibition

  21 November 1984

  Beijing

  Railway and Subway Expo/China '84

  29 November 1984

  Tianjin

  Electric Power and Water Expo

  4 December 1984

  Shanghai

  International Exhibition on Advanced Electronic Technology

  1985–86

  21 April 1985

  Shanghai

  Semiconductor International

  16 May 1985

  Nanjing

  International Exhibition on Building Equipment, Building Material Machinery and Building Material

  22 May 1985

  Guangzhou

  Port Development and Coastal Transportation Expo

  3 July 1985

  Shanghai

  International Exhibition on Automotive Industry

  18 September 1985

  Beijing

  2nd International Environmental Control, Measuring and Testing Equipment Exhibition

  8 October 1985

  Chengdu

  China Medical Expo

  22 October 1985

  Beijing

  International Packaging Conference and Exhibition

  4 November 1985

  Beijing

  International Agrobusiness Exhibition and Conference

  26 November 1985

  Guangzhou

  3rd Offshore Oil Exhibition and Conference

  2 December 1985

  Shanghai

  Marintec China

  7 December 1985

  Beijing

  International New Computer Technology Exhibition

  22 February 1986

  Beijing

  Nuclear and Power China '86

  13 March 1986

  Beijing

  International Textile Industry Exhibition

  14 March 1986

  Beijing

  2nd International Petroleum Equipment Show

  20 March 1986

  Beijing

  International Exhibition on Machine Tools, Metalworking and Allied Industries

  28 March 1986

  Beijing

  International Amusement and Educational Technology Exposition

  1986–87

  8 April 1986

  Shanghai

  International Exhibition on Textile Machinery

  16 April 1986

  Beijing

  Multi-National Instrumentation Conference and Exhibition

  18 April 1986

  Beijing

  International Electronic Production Conference

  380
  Mr. Alan Clark
  The information is not readily available.

  Mr. Fisher
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster whether he will list the British trade fairs supported by the British Overseas Trade Board in China in each of the last five years.

  Mr. Alan Clark
  The trade fairs held in China over the past five years which attracted support through the British Overseas Trade Board are as follows:
  381

  Opening Date

  City

  Title

  16 May 1986

  Shanghai

  3rd International Exhibition of Construction Equipment and Material

  5 June 1986

  Beijing

  International Trade Fair for Education Equipment

  10 June 1986

  Beijing

  International Exhibition of Rubber and Plastics Industries

  3 July 1986

  Beijing

  International Exhibition on Automotive Industry

  16 October 1986

  Beijing

  International Telecommunications/Computer Exhibition and Conference

  18 October 1986

  Beijing

  International Foundry Conference and Exhibition

  4 November 1986

  Beijing

  Asian Defence Technology Exposition

  10 November 1986

  Beijing

  Railway, Urban Transport and Subway Expo/China '86

  27 November 1986

  Guangzhou

  International Agrotechnology and Food Processing Exhibition and Conference

  9 December 1986

  Guangzhou

  1st Onshore Oil Exhibition and Conference

  10 March 1987

  Beijing

  2nd Electric Power and Water Expo

  1987–88

  24 April 1987

  Shanghai

  Semiconductor International

  7 May 1987

  Beijing

  China Coal

  17 June 1987

  Shanghai

  3rd International Exhibition on Automotive Industry

  24 June 1987

  Beijing

  3rd Environmental Pollution and Control, Measuring and Testing Equipment Exhibition

  12 September 1987

  Beijing

  2nd International Exhibition on Medical Equipment and Supplies

  14 October 1987

  Beijing

  Aviation Expo/China

  24 November 1987

  Guangzhou

  2nd International Packaging Conference and Exhibition

  24 November 1987

  Beijing

  4th International Exhibition on Rubber and Plastic Industries "Chinaplas"

  4 March 1988

  Beijing

  International Exhibition Machine Tools, Metalworking and Allied Industries

  Mr. Fisher
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what discussions he has had with the Chinese Government about the problems of unauthorised publication of British books in China.

  Mr. Alan Clark
  Chinese law does not extend copyright protection to foreign works and such works may therefore be published in that country. Contact on the subject of copyright has been made over a number of years with the Chinese Government, both at ministerial and official level. Recently, the Chinese Government have made good progress in drawing up a comprehensive law for the protection of both domestic and foreign works. In doing this, they have consulted widely with international experts. We understand that they hope to have the new law in force by 1990 and that they intend to join one of the international copyright conventions. We will continue to encourage the Chinese Government in this process.

  Consultancy Contracts
  Mr. Tim Smith
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what was the total amount spent by his Department in 1987 on management and computer consultancy contracts, excluding hardware and software purchases.

  Mr. Butcher
  My Department's expenditure on consultants employed to improve the efficiency of the Department in the financial year 1987–88 is estimated to be £6,463,000, of which £5,280,000 is for computer consultancy contracts, excluding hardware and software purchases.

  Expenditure on management consultants is not recorded separately from other consultancy spend.

  Mr. Tim Smith
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what was the total amount spent by the Office 382
  of Fair Trading in 1987 on management and computer consultancy contracts, excluding hardware and software purchases.

  Mr. Butcher
  This is a matter for the Director-General of Fair Trading, and 1 will ask him to write to my hon. Friend.

  Mr. Tim Smith
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what was the total amount spent by the Monopolies and Mergers Commission in 1987 on management and computer consultancy contracts, excluding hardware and software purchases.

  Mr. Maude
  Nil.

  Disabled People (Inner Cities)
  Mr. Alfred Morris
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what steps are being taken to ensure that, in Government plans to rehabilitate and revitalise the inner cities, provision will be made to meet the needs of disabled people.

  Mr. Kenneth Clarke
  Several Government inner city programmes include schemes specifically targeted on the disabled, such as the urban programme, skills and training initiatives and support for arts and sports. I have invited comments from the Royal Association for Disability and Rehabilitation on the action for cities proposals.

  Magistrates
  Mr. Meacher
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what information he has concerning the decision of the Oldham magistrates' bench interviewing committee that no one who is an elected member of the Oldham metropolitan borough council will be considered for appointment as a magistrate.

  Mr. Kenneth Clarke
  I have advisory committees to assist me with the selection of persons for appointment as
  383
  magistrates. In doing so they follow certain guidelines, of which the main criterion is suitability for office. Subject to this, I desire my committees to balance the bench so that it broadly reflects the make-up of the community of the area. For example, it would be wrong to have an overlarge proportion of persons on the bench involved in the work of local government.

  My committee at Oldham selects candidates for appointment on merit, follows the guidelines and does not bar elected members of the local authority from appointment.

  Advertising Standards Authority
  Mr. Harry Greenway
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if his Department has considered an application for an exhibition relating to the Advertising Standards Authority to be displayed in the Upper Waiting Hall.

  Mr. Butcher
  Yes. Arrangements have been made for such an exhibition in the Upper Waiting Hall to take place from Monday 25 April to Friday 29 April 1988.

  Internal Market
  Mr. Robertson
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if the invitation list to the EC internal market conference in Lancaster house on 18 April includes trade union representatives or Opposition hon. and right hon. Members of the House.

  Mr. Alan Clark
  [holding answer 28 March 1988]: The Lancaster house conference is primarily for senior business people. The general secretary of the Trades Union Congress has also received an invitation. My right hon. and noble Friend has invited all right hon. and hon. Members to a separate briefing at Lancaster house on the afternoon of 18 April.

  Investment Intermediaries
  Mr. Robertson
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what submissions he has made to the European Commission on the proposed directive on the authorisation of investment intermediaries.

  Mr. Maude
  [holding answer 25 March 1988]: The Commission has put forward no proposals for a directive dealing specifically with investment intermediaries. The Commission is considering a possible directive on investment services, but this has not yet been submitted to the Council of Ministers.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Fire Inspectorate
  Ms. Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether the remaining inspectors at the fire inspectorate will be replaced when they retire.

  Mr. John Patten
  I assume that the hon. Member is referring to members of Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Fire Services. A number of serving members of the inspectorate will be retiring in the near future and it is intended that each will be replaced.

  Prisoners (Ethnic Origins)
  Mr. Boateng
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he will update his Department's 1968 statistical bulletin on the ethnic origins of the prison population; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  We have no plans to update the detailed analyses of the ethnic origin of prisoners contained in Home Office statistical bulletin 17/86. Information on the ethnic origin of the population in prison department establishments by type of prisoner and by offence group for sentenced prisoners is now published annually in "Prison Statistics, England and Wales" (tables 1.11 to 1.13 of the 1986 issue, Cm. 210) copies of which are in the Library. The latest available information for 1987 is given in my reply to the question from the hon. Member for Hackney, South and Stoke Newington (Ms. Abbott) on 3 December 1987 at column 681.

  Operational Emergency Centres
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list those(a) district, (b) London borough and (c) metropolitan district authorities which have an operational emergency centre.

  Mr. John Patten
  The information requested is as follows. It is based on local authorities' returns due by 1 October 1987 under the Government's planned programme for implementation of the Civil Defence (General Local Authority Functions) Regulations 1983.

  (a) Districts with an operational emergency centre

  Avon:
  Bath City; Wansdyke

  Bedfordshire:
  Luton; Mid Bedfordshire; North Bedfordshire; South Bedfordshire

  Berkshire.
  Bracknell; Windsor and Maidenhead

  Buckinghamshire:
  South Bucks (Beaconsfield); Chiltern; Milton Keynes

  Cambridgeshire:
  East Cambridgeshire; South Cambridgeshire

  Cleveland:
  Hartlepool; Middlesbrough; Stockton on Tees

  Clwyd:
  Colwyn; Glyndwr

  Cornwall:
  Caradon; North Cornwall; Penwith

  Cumbria:
  Allerdale

  Devon:
  East Devon; Exeter; Plymouth Mid-Devon (Tiverton)

  Dorset:
  Bournemouth; Poole; Weymouth and Portland; Wimborne

  Durham:
  Chester-le-Street; Darlington; Derwentside; Durham; Easington; Teesdale

  Dyfed:
  Carmarthen.

  Essex:
  Chelmsford; Colchester; Epping Forest; Maldon; Tendring.

  Gloucestershire:
  Cheltenham; Cotswold; Forest of Dean; Gloucester.

  Gwynedd:
  Aberconwy; Meirionnydd.

  Hampshire:
  Basingstoke; Eastleigh; East Hampshire; Fareham; Gosport; Hart; New Forest; Portsmouth; Rushmoor; Southampton; Winchester.

  Hereford and Worcester:
  Leominster.

  Hertfordshire:
  East Hertfordshire.
  385
  Humberside:
  Beverley; Cleethorpes; East Yorkshire.

  Kent:
  Dartford; Gillingham; Sevenoaks; Shepway; Swale; Tonbridge and Mailing; Tonbridge Wells.

  Lancashire:
  Chorley; Clyde; South Ribble.

  Leicestershire:
  Blaby; Harborough; Hinckley and Bosworth; Melton; Rutland.

  Lincolnshire:
  Boston; North Kesteven; South Kesteven.

  Norfolk:
  Breckland; Great Yarmouth.

  Northamptonshire:
  Daventry; Kettering; Wellingborough.

  Nottinghamshire:
  Broxtowe; Mansfield; Nottingham City.

  Powys:
  Radnor.

  Salop:
  Bridgnorth; Shrewsbury and Atcham.

  Somerset:
  Sedgemoor; Taunton Deane.

  Staffordshire:
  Lichfield; Staffordshire Moorlands.

  Suffolk:
  Ipswich; St. Edmundsbury; Mid Suffolk.

  Surrey:
  Mole Valley; Surrey Heath; Waverley; Woking.

  East Sussex:
  Hove; Lewes; Rother; Wealden.

  West Sussex:
  Arun; Mid Sussex.

  Warwickshire:
  Rugby; Stratford on Avon.

  Wiltshire:
  Kennet; North Wiltshire; Salisbury.

  North Yorkshire:
  Hambleton; Harrogate; Selby.

  (b) London boroughs with an operational centre

  North West Group
  Hammersmith; Hillingdon

  North East Group
  Waltham Forest

  South East Group
  Bexley; Bromley; Lewisham; Southwark

  South West Group
  Kingston-upon-Thames; Lambeth; Merton; Richmond-upon-Thames

  (c) Fire and civil defence authority districts with an operational emergency centre

  Greater Manchester:
  Bury; Trafford

  Merseyside:
  Wirral

  West Yorkshire:
  Calderdale

  Civil Defence
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list those(a) county and (b) fire and civil defence authorities that have (i) an operational county main emergency centre and (ii) an operational county standby emergency centre; and if he will list those London group emergency centres that are currently operational.

  Mr. John Patten
  The information requested is as follows. It is based on local authorities' returns due by 1 October 1987 under the Government's planned programme for implementation of the Civil Defence (General Local Authority Functions) Regulations 1983.

  (a) County authorities with operational emergency centres

  The County authorities with both main and standby centres operational are:
  386
  Cleveland; Clwyd; Durham; Essex; West Glamorgan; Gwent; Gwynedd; Hampshire; Isle of Wight; Leicestershire; Nottinghamshire; Suffolk; Surrey; Warwickshire; Wiltshire; North Yorkshire.

  The County authorities with main centres only operational are:
  Bedfordshire; Cambridgeshire; Cheshire; Cumbria; Devon; Kent; Lancashire; Norfolk; Oxfordshire; Powys; Salop; Somerset.

  The County authorities with standby centres only operational are:
  Avon; Berkshire; Buckinghamshire; Gloucestershire; Lincolnshire; Northamptonshire.

  (b) Fire and civil defence authorities (FCDAs) with operational emergency centres
  Merseyside and West Yorkshire have main and standby centres operational.
  Greater Manchester and South Yorkshire have main centres only operational.

  (c) London group operational emergency centres

  The London groups with operational centres are:
  North East; South West and South East.

  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will identify those local authorities that will receive civil defence grant towards the construction or conversion of emergency centres during each of the years 1988–89, 1989–90 and 1990–91; and if he will indicate the likely scale of the provision involved in each year.

  Mr. John Patten
  We expect grant-eligible expenditure on emergency centres to total about £3·5 million for each of the financial years mentioned but details will not be available until relevant expenditure for each authority has been approved.

  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will identify those local authorities that have received civil defence grant towards the construction or conversion of emergency centres during each of the years 1984–85, 1985–86, 1986–87 and 1987–88; and if he will indicate the scale of the expenditure involved in each year.

  Mr. John Patten
  The local authorities concerned are listed as follows. Expenditure attracting grant at the rate of 75 per cent. totalled £1·7 million in 1984–85, £2·1 million in 1985–86 and £3·3 million in 1986–87. The expected figure for 1987–88 is £3·5 million.

  County authorities in receipt of grant in all years stated
  Avon; Bedfordshire; Berkshire; Buckinghamshire; Cambridgeshire; Cleveland; Cornwall; Derbyshire; Devon; Dorset; Durham; East Sussex; Essex; Gloucestershire; Gwent; Gwynedd; Hampshire; Hereford and Worcestershire; Hertfordshire; Humberside; Isle of Wight; Kent; Lincolnshire; London; Norfolk; Northumberland; North Yorkshire; Nottinghamshire; Oxfordshire; Somerset; Suffolk; Surrey; Wiltshire.

  County authorities in receipt of grant in some of the years stated

  Cheshire: 1986–87; 1987–88

  Clwyd: 1984–85; 1987–88

  Cumbria: 1984–85; 1985–86; 1987–88

  Dyfed: 1984–85; 1985–86; 1987–88

  Greater Manchester: 1984–85; 1985–86; 1986–87

  Lancashire: 1985–86; 1986–87; 1987–88

  Leicestershire: 1984–85; 1985–86; 1987–88

  Merseyside: 1987–88

  Powys: 1984–85; 1986–87; 1987–88

  Salop: 1984–85; 1985–86; 1987–88

  South Glamorgan: 1984–85; 1985–86; 1986–87

  Staffordshire: 1985–86; 1986–87; 1987–88

  387

  Warwickshire: 1984–85; 1985–86; 1986–87

  West Glamorgan:: 1985–86; 1987–88

  West Sussex: 1986–87; 1987–88

  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many local authority emergency centres have been inspected by officials from his Department; and if he is satisfied with the facilities provided by local authorities for emergency communications and control.

  Mr. John Patten
  Visits by officials to local authority emergency centres occur in support of detailed consideration of a number of issues, including the installation of new communications equipment, but no comprehensive record is kept of the instances. Progress made by local authorities in meeting their statutory responsibilities to establish, equip and maintain emergency centres is monitored under the Government's planned programme for implementation of the Civil Defence (General Local Authority Functions) Regulations 1983.

  Crime Prevention
  Mr. Lawrence
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether, in the light of recent evidence, including opinion polls, showing a higher than average incidence of the fear of crime in inner cities, he will take further steps to improve his crime prevention measures through the urban programme or other means.

  Mr. John Patten
  In reply to a question from my hon. Friend the Member for Derby, North (Mr. Knight) on 7 March 1988, at columns 3–4, my right hon. Friend reported the launch of the Government's safer cities programme which is specifically designed to tackle crime and the fear of crime in inner city areas with high crime levels. The programme will comprise safer city projects in 20 areas, to be established over the next three years. these will aim to complement and strengthen a range of initiatives, funded both from Government funds (including the urban programme) and the private sector.

  Police (Subject Access Requests)
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many subject access requests under the terms of the Data Protection Act each police force has received to date; and whether he will make a statement.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  The information is not at present available centrally. It is being sought from forces and I shall write to the hon. Member as soon as it is available.

  Consultancy Contracts
  Mr. Tim Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what was the total amount spend by

  Police officer strength

  Region and force

  May 1979

  January 1988

  Increase

  Per cent.

  Midlands

  Derbyshire

  1,587

  1,788

  +201

  12·7

  Leicestershire

  1,701

  1,760

  +59

  3·5

  Northamptonshire

  909

  1,069

  +160

  17·6

  Nottinghamshire

  2,120

  2,253

  +133

  6·3

  Staffordshire

  1,980

  2,147

  +167

  8·4

  Warwickshire

  843

  980

  +137

  16·3

  388
  the Metropolitan police in 1987 on management and computer consultancy contracts, excluding hardware and software purchases.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  I understand from the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis that the Metroplitan police spent £1,673,923 on management and computer consultancy contracts in 1987.

  Iranian Refugees
  Mr. David Nicholson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many persons of Iranian nationality claiming to be refugees have arrived in the United Kingdom from Turkey in each of the past four years; how many were given asylum in the United Kingdom; how many were returned to Turkey; and what representations he has received regarding the Turkish practice of returning such people to Iran.

  Mr. Tim Renton
  As applicants for asylum are recorded by nationality and not by country of embarkation, the figures requested could be provided only at disproportionate cost. Whilst we have received representations on individual cases of Iranian asylum-seekers from Turkey, I am unaware of any case of an Iranian refugee being sent back to Iran following return to Turkey from this country. Turkey is a signatory to the 1951 UN convention on refugees. There is a UNHCR presence in Turkey to which any Iranian may look for assistance.

  Firearms Certificates
  Mr. William Ross
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what action he intends to take in relation to the letter ref. MLB.JD dated 19 January 1985 from the prosecuting solicitors' office Gwent police authority to an applicant for a firearms certificate.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  Responsibility for the administration of the Firearms Act 1968 is vested with chief officers of police. My right hon. Friend has no authority to intervene in individual cases.

  Police
  Mr. Boyes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will provide a table depicting police force strength in numbers of officers for all regions of the United Kingdom and the percentage increases or decreases these figures represent from 1979 to the latest available date.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  My right hon. Friend has responsibility only for England and Wales, for which the information is as follows:
  389

  Region and force

  May 1979

  January 1988

  Increase

  Per cent.

  West Mercia

  1,752

  1,948

  +196

  11·2

  West Midlands

  6,031

  6,675

  +644

  10·7

  North East

  Cleveland

  1,347

  1,465

  +118

  8·8

  Durham

  1,312

  1,335

  +23

  1·8

  Humberside

  1,861

  1,955

  +94

  5·1

  Lincolnshire

  1,175

  1,174

  -1

  (0·1)

  Northumbria

  3,285

  3,473

  +188

  5·7

  North Yorkshire

  1,337

  1,379

  +42

  3·1

  South Yorkshire

  2,560

  2,930

  +370

  14·5

  West Yorkshire

  4,739

  5,188

  +449

  9·5

  South West

  Avon and Somerset

  2,829

  3,009

  +180

  6·4

  Devon and Cornwall

  2,667

  2,804

  +137

  5·1

  Dorset

  1,140

  1,243

  +103

  9·0

  Gloucestershire

  1,081

  1,158

  +77

  7·1

  Wiltshire

  1,001

  1,093

  +92

  9·2

  South East

  Bedfordshire

  900

  997

  +97

  10·8

  Cambridgeshire

  1,071

  1,160

  +89

  8·3

  City of London

  832

  784

  -48

  (5·8)

  Essex

  2,490

  2,719

  +229

  9·2

  Hampshire

  2,955

  3,099

  +144

  4·9

  Hertfordshire

  1,455

  1,607

  +152

  10·4

  Kent

  2,730

  2,901

  +171

  6·3

  Metropolitan

  22,225

  27,449

  +5,224

  23·5

  Norfolk

  1,229

  1,302

  +73

  5·9

  Suffolk

  1,077

  1,187

  +110

  10·2

  Surrey

  1,442

  1,640

  +198

  13·7

  Sussex

  2,759

  2,871

  +112

  4·1

  Thames Valley

  2,653

  3,478

  +825

  31·1

  North West

  Cheshire

  1,787

  1,839

  +52

  2·9

  Cumbria

  1,064

  1,150

  +86

  8·1

  Greater Manchester

  6,440

  6,991

  +551

  8·6

  Lancashire

  3,093

  3,149

  +56

  1·8

  Merseyside

  4,441

  4,660

  +219

  4·9

  Wales

  Dyfed Powys

  913

  925

  +12

  1·3

  Gwent

  971

  975

  +4

  0·4

  North Wales

  1,269

  1,303

  +34

  2·7

  South Wales

  2,945

  3,119

  +174

  5·9

  England and Wales

  109,998

  122,131

  +12,133

  11·0

  Visas
  Mr. Wheeler
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what effects the imposition of a visa requirement on the nationals of India, Bangladesh, Pakistan, Ghana and Nigeria have had at ports of entry to the United Kingdom particularly with regard to the delays which were experienced on immigration control during 1985 and 1986.

  Mr. Tim Renton
  Visa requirements were introduced in October 1986 for nationals of India, Bangladesh, Pakistan and Ghana and on 1 February 1987 for Nigeria. Since introduction there have been very substantial improvements at the Heathrow and Gatwick terminals in easing congestion, reducing delays at peak periods and improving conditions for passengers, their friends and relatives meeting them, and for the staff at the immigration service.

  In 1986 a total of about 24,000 persons were refused entry and removed; in 1987 the figures had dropped to just over 19,000. Because of the pressure on the control in 1986 many of those who arrived before October were not
  390
  refused entry and removed until the following year. The fall in the refusal rate is therefore even greater than the apparent 20 per cent.

  The figures for Heathrow terminal 3 given in the table are illustrative of the reduction in casework at the major terminals dealing with passengers from the five countries.

  At terminal 4, which also handles intercontinental traffic, the position was very similar. Summer 1986 saw a steady increase in the volume of difficult casework. Some 466 passengers were referred for further examination in June swelling to 847 in the first two weeks in October. By contrast the same figures for the second half of 1987 remained relatively constant varying between extremes of 270 and 316 cases per month. A random sample of passengers arriving on Saturdays during last September revealed that only five passengers from Bangladesh, India and Pakistan were referred to the further examination area whereas 241 such passengers were set aside for further examination on the corresponding four days of September 1986.
  391
  Without the visa imposition, and with a 13 per cent. increase in passenger traffic in 1987, pressure on the control at terminal 4 last year would have been intolerable notwithstanding an additional allocation of staff.

  Similar improvements were experienced at Heathrow terminal 2 and Gatwick. Of the major ports only Heathrow terminal 1 and Dover did not experience any substantial change in 1987 because nationals of the five countries involved do not use these in substantial number.

  Terminal 3

  June-July-August 1986

  June-July-August 1987

  Per cent.

  Total passengers

  898,259

  1,048,791

  +17·5

  Average number of immigration officers available

  222

  195

  -12

  Passengers refused admission

  2,179

  1,041

  -52

  Passengers referred for secondary examination

  4,485

  1,876

  -58

  Members' of Parliament representations

  945

  82

  -91

  Passengers with entry clearance who were refused admission

  37

  68

  +83

WALES

  Consultancy Contracts
  Mr. Tim Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what was the total spent by his Department in 1987 on management and computer consultancy contracts, excluding hardware and software purchases.

  Mr. Peter Walker
  The Department's expenditure on such centrally managed consultancy contracts in 1987 was £30,938·21. It is not possible to identify without disproportionate costs fees paid on management and computer consultancy contracts in respect of projects not centrally managed.

  Summary of impact of Local Government Finance Bill proposals for non-domestic rates and the grant system in Wales 1988·89

  Community Charge per adult

  Revenue Support Grant per adult

  Non-domestic Rate Revenue per adult

  Domestic Rate Poundage

  Safety Net (County and District) per adult

  Average Rate Bill per adult

  Expenditure per adult

  £

  £

  £

  Pence

  £

  £

  £

  Alyn and Deeside

  19

  57

  29

  226·58

  -35

  176

  104

  Colwyn

  26

  61

  29

  239·60

  -50

  198

  115

  Delyn

  27

  67

  29

  228·45

  -26

  176

  122

  Glyndwr

  27

  47

  29

  232·20

  -6

  155

  102

  Rhuddlan

  15

  91

  29

  227·42

  -33

  170

  135

  Wrexham Maelor

  30

  64

  29

  233·69

  -9

  162

  123

  Carmarthen

  19

  54

  29

  236·67

  28

  123

  102

  Ceredigion

  9

  60

  29

  229·55

  4

  136

  97

  Dinefwr

  4

  54

  29

  227·66

  25

  110

  87

  Llanelli

  29

  74

  29

  252·44

  23

  137

  131

  Preseli Pembrokeshire

  5

  61

  29

  226·84

  10

  126

  95

  South Pembrokeshire

  7

  81

  29

  233·08

  -13

  152

  117

  Blaenau Gwent

  36

  97

  29

  239·89

  40

  116

  161

  Islwyn

  34

  86

  29

  233·00

  27

  127

  149

  Monmouth

  25

  45

  29

  235·86

  -22

  167

  98

  Newport

  30

  79

  29

  232·01

  -35

  185

  138

  Torfaen

  32

  67

  29

  241·58

  -2

  154

  127

  Aberconwy

  31

  63

  29

  238·32

  -36

  173

  122

  Arfon

  29

  74

  29

  231·38

  6

  129

  132

  Dwyfor

  30

  90

  29

  234·79

  -24

  160

  149

  Meirionnydd

  34

  82

  29

  228·77

  -18

  158

  145

  Factory Closures
  Mr. Gareth Wardell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many plants in Wales which employed more than 500 persons in 1983 have since been closed down; and how many of these were foreign-owned.

  Mr. Peter Walker
  Four manufacturing plants with more than 500 employees in 1983 have since closed, including one which had been British-owned but had been acquired by a German company in 1980.

  Rating Reform
  Dr. Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what, assuming the full replacement of rates by the community charge and the implementation of the proposals in the Local Government Finance Bill for non-domestic rates and the grant system, in 1988–89(a) for Wales, (b) for each class of local authority and (c) for each local authority, showing precepting authorities separately the following items in pounds per adult would be: (i) the community charge without safety net, (ii) the safety net, (iii) needs grant, (iv) redistributed non-domestic rate revenue, showing also the corresponding 1988–89 domestic rate poundage and in pounds per adult the average rate bill and local authority expenditure.

  Mr. Grist
  [holding answer 28 March 1988]: Illustrative figures are given in the following table. These figures are provisional and will be updated as better information is received from local authorities. Calculations have been based on present needs assessments which are under review. The expenditure of individual community councils is not available and has been included with the appropriate district council's expenditure. The Government no longer propose to pay separate needs and standard grants to authorities. These have been replaced by a single revenue support grant as shown in column 3 of the table. Average rate bills per adult are on a basis comparable with the community charge figures and exclude any use of balances.
  393

  Community Charge per adult

  Revenue Support Grant per adult

  Non-domestic Rate Revenue per adult

  Domestic Rate Poundage

  Safety Net (County and District) per adult

  Average Rate Bill per adult

  Expenditure per adult

  £

  £

  £

  Pence

  £

  £

  £

  Ynys Mon

  24

  72

  29

  227·82

  -24

  154

  125

  Cynon Valley

  18

  98

  29

  246·73

  48

  108

  145

  Merthyr Tydfil

  30

  112

  29

  254·76

  44

  124

  171

  Ogwr

  27

  62

  29

  260·55

  13

  151

  118

  Rhondda

  19

  125

  29

  258·50

  71

  85

  173

  Rhymney Valley

  34

  72

  29

  258·97

  33

  139

  135

  Taff Ely

  26

  62

  29

  255·83

  18

  145

  116

  Brecknock

  21

  57

  29

  225·45

  2

  131

  107

  Montgomeryshire

  5

  52

  29

  205·82

  -11

  128

  86

  Radnor

  11

  51

  29

  213 42

  -11

  135

  91

  Cardiff

  0

  93

  29

  207·05

  -69

  179

  117

  Vale of Glamorgan

  11

  57

  29

  213·48

  -45

  166

  96

  Port Talbot

  42

  80

  29

  283·82

  51

  154

  150

  Lliw Valley

  22

  56

  29

  285·83

  43

  142

  107

  Neath

  12

  63

  29

  287·87

  21

  154

  104

  Swansea

  36

  91

  29

  295·43

  7

  192

  156

  Clwyd

  123

  363

  152

  231·33

  —

  —

  637

  Dyfed

  131

  391

  152

  235·29

  —

  —

  674

  Gwent

  120

  383

  152

  235·83

  —

  —

  655

  Gwynedd

  105

  411

  152

  232·13

  —

  —

  668

  Mid Glamorgan

  137

  407

  152

  257·05

  —

  —

  696

  Powys

  112

  482

  152

  214·23

  —

  —

  746

  South Glamorgan

  110

  376

  152

  208·80

  —

  —

  638

  West Glamorgan

  164

  377

  152

  291·35

  —

  —

  692

  Districts

  22

  74

  29

  238·77

  —

  —

  125

  Total counties

  128

  390

  152

  238·77

  —

  —

  670

  Total Wales

  150

  465

  180

  238 77

  —

  —

  794

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  Ratu Mara and Penaia Ganilau
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what details he has about the proposed visit of Ratu Mara and Penaia Ganilau to Britain; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Eggar
  The Prime Minister of Fiji, Ratu Mara, is visiting Britain from 27 to 31 March and will have talks today, 29 March, with my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister and my right hon. and learned Friend. The President of Fiji, Ratu Penaia Ganilau, is not with him.

  Consultancy Contracts
  Mr. Tim Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what was the total amount spent by his Department in 1987 on management and computer consultancy contracts, excluding hardware and software purchases.

  Mr. Eggar
  Foreign and Commonwealth Office expenditure to date for the financial year 1987–88 on management and computer consultancy is as shown. The figures include expenditure for both the diplomatic and aid wings of the office:

  £

  Management consultancy

  257,272

  Computer consultancy

  1,171,347

  China (Town Twinning)
  Mr. Fisher
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what information he has on which British towns and cities are twinned with towns or cities in China.

  Mr. Eggar
  Twinning activity in the United Kingdom is co-ordinated by the secretariat of the Joint Twinning Committee of Local Authority Associations of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. The secretariat keeps a record of all United Kingdom twinnings, including ones with China. Such information is held in the Library of the House.

  Iranian Refugees
  Mr. David Nicholson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations he has made to the Government of Turkey regarding the Turkish practice of sending Iranian refugees, who have come to the United Kingdom from Turkey and been returned to Turkey, back to Iran.

  Mrs. Chalker
  None. Neither we, nor the representative in Turkey of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, have any specific evidence of Iranian refugees returned to Turkey from this country being sent back to Iran.

  Agricultural Produce (Radioactivity)
  Mr. Churchill
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what information he has about cases of companies within the European Community seeking to sell to Third world countries agricultural produce heavily contaminated with radioactivity; and if he will make a statement as to what steps Her Majesty's Government are taking to prevent this.
  395
  Mrs. Chalker
  None. In the light of a rigorous national monitoring programme instituted following the Chernobyl accident, we are satisfied about the safety of all United Kingdom foodstuffs placed on the domestic market or exported.

  EC (Information)
  Mr. Teddy Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what information he has as to how much money is being paid to United Kingdom political parties by the European Parliament for information purposes relating to the European Community and its institutions; and if he will make a statement.

  Mrs. Chalker
  The draft budget for 1988 now under discussion contains 27·7 million ecu which is for information work by the European Parliament. Under EP rules this money is distributed to the political groups in the European Parliament. It is up to each political group itself to decide how to disburse its allocation among its members in the different member states.

EDUCATION AND SCIENCE

  Higher Education (Engineering)
  Miss Widdecombe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science how many representations he has received following the publication of the Engineering Council's proposals on the restructuring of engineering higher education; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Jackson
  None. The Government await the outcome of responses to the Engineering Council's discussion document with interest.

  Education Reform
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science how he intends to ensure that the new national tests contain no inherent bias against(a) children from different cultural backgrounds and (b) multi-lingual children whose first language is not English.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  The task group on assessment and testing has recommended that assessment instruments should be reviewed regularly by statistical and other means for any evidence of bias, particularly in respect of gender and race. The group also suggested that children whose first language is not English might be exempted if their language problems made tests unworkable; and that assessment in other skills, particularly at age seven, should wherever practicable and necessary, be conducted in the pupil's first language.

  Open University (Exhibition)
  Mr. Benyon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if his Department has considered an application for an exhibition relating to the Open University to be displayed in the Upper Waiting Hall.

  Mr. Jackson
  I understand that, under procedures agreed by the Services Committee, arrangements have been made with the authorities of the House for the exhibition to be held in the Upper Waiting Hall from Monday 18 April to Friday 22 April.

  Chinese Universities (British Students)
  Mr. Fisher
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science whether he will publish a table showing the number of British students who have studied at universities in China in each of the last five years; and what subjects such students have been studying.

  Mr. Jackson
  The readily available information is drawn mainly from the UNESCO statistical yearbook; subject of study is not recorded in this source.

  Year

  Number of Students

  1981

  54

  1982

  45

  11983

  60

  11984

  72

  11985

  65

  1 Data refer to full-time students.

  Chinese Students
  Mr. Fisher
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science whether he will publish a table showing how many students from China have studied at British(a) universities and (b) polytechnics in each of the last five years; and what subjects such students have been studying.

  Mr. Jackson
  The number of students from China studying at institutions in Great Britain is provided in the following table. Information on the subjects such students studied is not available.

  Students from China at institutions in Great Britain

  Academic year beginning in

  1982

  1983

  1984

  1985

  1986

  University

  182

  212

  362

  594

  711

  Polytechnics and Colleges

  41

  27

  48

  77

  117

  Consultancy Contracts
  Mr. Tim Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what was the total amount spent by his Department in 1987 on management and computer consultancy contracts, excluding hardware and software purchases.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  A total of £364,152 was spent on management and computer consultancy contracts, excluding hardware and software purchases, in the calendar year 1987. In addition, the Department spent some £535,030 on costs associated with the privatisation of the Plant Breeding Institute.

  School Population (Suffolk)
  Mr. David Porter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what representations Suffolk county council has made on the increase in its school population while the Sizewell B power station is being built; and what responses he has given.

  Mr. Dunn
  None.

  Medical Research (Charges)
  Mr. Cryer
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what representations he has received seeking
  397
  legislation to prevent universities from imposing charges for medical research funded by charities; what specific representations he has received about the charges imposed in respect of research into Freidreich's Ataxia disease; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Jackson
  The Government much appreciate the substantial sums which charities provide for research in universities — in 1986–87 they contributed about £66 million to medical research. In general, charitable moneys cover only part of the cost of the specific research projects which they support, with a substantial part of the costs — for academic staff time, premises, equipment, materials and overheads — being met from general university funds.

  In the light of advice from the Advisory Board for the Research Councils, we are currently reviewing the balance of funding responsibilities between universities and the research councils for projects which the latter support. This may have implications for charitable funding of medical research which in most cases is treated analogously with research councils' grants. I discussed this matter on 10 March with the Association of Medical Research Charities.

  My right hon. Friend has not received any representations seeking legislation on these matters. We have received 47 representations from members of the Friedreich's Ataxia Group about the possibility of their having to meet a larger proportion of the costs of the research which the group supports in universities. These representations will be taken into account in our consideration of the wider issues.

  Computer Services (Skill Shortages)
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science, pursuant to the reply of 1 March,Official Report, column 539, what resources have been made available under the engineering, science and technology initiative to increase relevant higher education opportunities; and what proposals he has to meet skill shortages in the computer services sector.

  Mr. Jackson
  The Government have made available a total of £43 million between 1985 and 1988 to fund additional higher education places under the engineering and technology programme. Future expenditure plans support the additional places in the longer term beyond this period.

  To secure the skills they want employers in the computer services and other sectors must provide proper incentives for people to acquire those skills, develop internal recruitment, and make the vital investment needed in training and in the upgrading of skills.

  The Government have given the lead through their investment in the engineering and technology programme, which is one of a number of initiatives already being taken to increase output in particular areas where it is clear that demand outstrips supply.

THE ARTS

  Consultancy Contracts
  Mr. Tim Smith
  To ask the Minister for the Arts what was the total amount spent by his office in 1987 on management and computer consultancy contracts, excluding hardware and software purchases.
  398
  Mr. Luce
  In 1987, £2,300 was spent by my office to meet in part the cost of a computer consultancy contract for the Government art collection. No money was spent on management consultancy.

NATIONAL FINANCE

  Taxation
  Mr. Barron
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) if he will provide the Treasury model estimate of the full year impact of the cuts in the higher rates of income tax announced in the Budget; and if he will provide a similar estimate of the impact of an additional annual £2 billion of current public expenditure;

  (2) if he will estimate the full year impact on the current account of the balance of payments of the cuts in the basic and higher rates of income tax announced in the Budget.

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

  Interest Rates
  Mr. Thurnham
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what representations he has received about interest rates since the Budget; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Lilley
  My right hon. Friend has received a number of representations on this subject.

  Consultancy Contracts
  Mr. Tim Smith
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) what was the total amount spent by Her Majesty's Treasury in 1987 on management and computer consultancy contracts, excluding hardware and software purchases;

  (2) what was the total amount spent by the Central Computer and Telecommunications Agency in 1987 on management and computer consultancy contracts, excluding hardware and software purchases.

  Mr. Brooke
  In 1987 total Treasury expenditure was some £5·6 million (including some £5·3 million by the Central Computer and Telecommunications Agency).

  Mr. Tim Smith
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what was the total amount spent by Her Majesty's Stationery Office in 1987 on management and computer consultancy contracts, excluding hardware and software purchases.

  Mr. Brooke
  £336,000.

  British Rail (Customs Controls)
  Mr. Soley
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will detail the facilities and procedures required of British Rail by the Board of Customs and Excise to allow for the performance of effective on-train customs controls.

  Mr. Lilley
  Discussions are at present taking place between Customs and British Rail about the facilities that would be required on the through trains travelling via Olympia. These include adequate space for baggage examination and interviews. Back-up facilities will also be required at Olympia for the more protracted investigations where serious offences are detected or suspected, for the
  399
  detention of offenders and suspects and for communications and administrative support. Discussions with BR on the Olympia requirements will begin shortly.

  EC (Own Resources)
  Mr. Gerald Bowden
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether the European Commission has paid to member states the 400 mecu traditional own resources refunds deferred from 1987 under Council regulation 3952/87.

  Mr. Brooke
  Yes. The Commission paid to member states on 24 March the refunds of traditional own resources deferred from 1987. These refunds are set at 10 per cent. of traditional own resources (levies and duties) paid over to the Commission by member states and are intended to cover costs of collection.

  As I reported to the House on 3 July last year, at column 175, the Budget Council decided on 2 July to defer 400 mecu of these refunds until early 1988 to help deal with the Community's budgetary problems last year. The Commission accordingly deferred most of the refunds due to member states in respect of the traditional own resources established between June and October 1987. In the event, the total amount deferred (and now refunded to member states) came to 443 mecu rather than 400 mecu because these own resources were running at a higher level than expected. The United Kingdom's share of the sums now refunded is some 91 mecu (£63·1 million).

  In accordance with the conclusions of the Brussels European Council in February, the existing arrangements for 10 per cent. refunds of traditional own resources are to be replaced, with effect from the beginning of 1988, by a new system whereby member states will make a 10 per cent deduction from their monthly payments of these own resources to the Commission (which relate to own resources established two months previously). In keeping with this, the Commission does not propose to pay to member states refunds in respect of own resources established from November 1987 onwards (and for which there is no budgetary provision). It proposes instead to invite member states to deduct from their first payments of traditional own resources after the 1988 budget has been adopted the total deductions due in respect of own resources established from November 1987 onwards. In this way member states will effectively receive the 10 per cent. collection costs due to them in respect of all the months concerned.

  Business Expansion Scheme
  Mr. Grylls
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on the proposed restriction on companies raising finance under the business expansion scheme.

  Mr. Norman Lamont
  My hon. Friend the Economic Secretary to the Treasury announced during the Budget debates on 17 March that provided a company had issued a prospectus before Budget day and issued the shares before the end of the present tax year, the £500,000 limit would be increased to £1 million. However, there are some companies which do not offer shares to the public and do not need therefore to issue a prospectus. In order to help these companies the announced relaxation will also apply 400
  to a share issue made in pursuance of an offer for sale in writing made before Budget day, provided that the shares are issued before the end of the present tax year.

  It has also been suggested that the limitation on the amount raised in any period of 12 months could prevent a company using the BES to raise finance when it needs it. So we propose to amend this rule in a way which will give companies more flexibility while retaining the principle of an annual limit. The amended limit will apply to the amount raised in a tax year, but in order to prevent companies effectively doubling the limit by making share issues both at the end of one tax year and the beginning of the next, the limit will also apply to the amount raised in any period of six months.

AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

  Small Farmers Association
  Mr. Mans
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when he last met the chairman of the Small Farmers Association; and what matters were discussed.

  Mr. MacGregor: I have not met the chairman of the Small Farmers Association in my present ministerial capacity, though I have very frequent contact with all sections of the farming community.

  Forestry
  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will state the area of land approved for forestry grant-aid in each of the five years to 31 March 1987 and from 1 April 1987 to date in England.

  Mr. Gummer
  The information is as follows:

  Year ended 31 March

  Area of land (hectares)

  1983

  11,225

  1984

  16,290

  1985

  17,379

  1986

  16,002

  1987

  25,245

  The total area of land approved for planting in the period 1 April 1987 to 31 December 1987 was 23,932 hectares. Figures are not yet available beyond 31 December 1987.

  Consultancy Contracts
  Mr. Tim Smith
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what was the total amount spent by his Ministry in 1987 on management and computer consultancy contracts, excluding hardware and software purchases.

  Mr. Donald Thompson
  In 1987 my Department spent £707,662 on such consultancies.

  Sheep Exports (Restrictions)
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what restrictions were placed on the export of sheep from the restricted areas of Cumbria from 20 June 1986 to 2 September 1986.

  Mr. Donald Thompson
  [holding answer 28 March 1988]: All sheep in the restricted area in Cumbria were subject to movement restrictions. Movements were

  401
  authorised from 18 August under specific approvals which precluded the slaughter of marked sheep. Export of live sheep to third countries is not permitted for welfare reasons, other than for the purpose of breeding. All live sheep exported to EC member countries are subject to Ministry veterinary control.

SCOTLAND

  Mental Hospitals
  Mr. Goodlad
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland (1) if he will list the mental hospitals which are scheduled to(a) open and (b) close in Scotland in each of the next seven years;

  (2) how many residential places in the community will be provided for those discharged from mental hospitals in Scotland in each of the next seven years;

  (3) how many new mental hospital beds have been opened in Scotland in each of the last 10 years;

  (4) how many mental hospital beds have been closed in Scotland in each of the last 10 years.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  It is our general policy that mentally ill people capable of living in the community should have the opportunity of doing so, but it is important that discharges from hospital should not take place before appropriate community provision is available. It is for individual local authorities to make provision for their areas in consultation with health boards and voluntary organisations.

  We accept, however, that there is a need to continue to treat certain types of mental illness in a hospital setting. Suitable hospital facilities must therefore continue to be provided with the emphasis on smaller units related to the communities they serve.

  I am not able to predict the mental hospital openings or closures which may take place over the next seven years. It is up to health boards to deliver services in the light of their strategic plans which in turn reflect Government's policy for the services concerned. Boards have no plans at present to build any completely new mental hospitals. Their strategic plans propose the eventual closure of some hospitals, but this would require an application to my right hon. and learned Friend for his approval.

  Details of new mental hospital beds the bulk of which are replacement beds are held centrally only from 1979. The information is as follows:

  Number

  1979

  120

  1980

  60

  1981

  60

  1982

  Nil

  1983

  432

  1984

  240

  1985

  600

  1986

  270

  1987

  120

  Details of mental hospital beds closed in Scotland are held centrally only in relation to formal applications for closure made to the Secretary of State. The information, which is available only from 1979, is as follows:

  Number

  1979

  Nil

  1980

  Nil

  402

  Number

  1981

  Nil

  1982

  Nil

  1983

  Nil

  1984

  Nil

  1985

  85

  1986

  58

  1987

  87

  Forestry
  Mrs. Clwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what assessment he has made of the likely geographical and topographical distribution of new tree planting over the next 10 years in the United Kingdom.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  We expect to see a higher proportion of planting than hitherto taking place on lower land of better quality. The rate of planting in Scotland is likely to continue to exceed that in England and Wales.

  Mr. Harry Greenway
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many acres of land are planted with(a) conifers and (b) broadleaves; and if he will make a statement.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  At 31 March 1987 the area of productive woodland in Great Britain was 1,490,000 hectares of conifers and 604,000 hectares of broadleaves.

  Psychiatric Nurses
  Mr. Goodlad
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many community psychiatric nurses there were in Scotland in 1979; how many there are now; and how many he estimates there will be in 1991.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave him on 2 November 1987, at column 435.

  Mentally Ill People
  Mr. Goodlad
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list the amounts provided for the forthcoming year for bridging funds in Scotland for local care of patients discharged or excluded from mental hospitals; how much in each case is provided for long-term patients still to be discharged from hospitals and how much for those already discharged from hospital; what the figure per patient is in each case; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  The arrangements for the funding of community care in Scotland do not provide for bridging funds. Under NHS circular 1985(GEN)18, health boards may make lump sum or continuing payments to a local authority or voluntary agency towards the cost of projects which make it possible for people such as the mentally ill to return to, or remain in, the community. The indicative level for 1988–89 notified to health boards is £4·7 million.

  Mr. Goodlad
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what experiments in hospital hostels for discharged mental patients have been conducted in Scotland; what lessons have been learnt; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  Hospital hostels are regarded as part of the psychiatric hospital provision and generally do not accommodate patients who have been discharged.
  403
  These hostels care for patients who are preparing to re-enter the community. Initiatives in these programmes are conducted and developed on a continuing basis.

  Civil Defence
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list those regional and island authorities with an operational (i) main and (ii) standby emergency centre, and those district authorities that have an operational emergency centre.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  On the basis of returns provided by local authorities for October 1987, information about operational emergency centres which meet the standards set out in the emergency planning guidance to local authorities is as follows:

  Regions

  Borders Region—Main and standby

  Grampian Region—Main and standby

  Districts

  Gordon1

  Kincardine and Deeside1

  Roxburgh

  Tweeddale1

  1 Co-ordinated with a regional emergency centre.

  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will identify those local authorities that will receive civil defence grant towards the construction or conversion of emergency centres during each of the years 1988–89, 1989–90 and 1990–91; and if he will indicate the likely scale of the provision involved in each year.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  Grant-eligible expenditure on civil defence capital projects, predominantly, but not exclusively, emergency centres, is expected to be £904,000 in 1988–89, £948,000 in 1989–90, and £995,000 in 1990–91. It is expected that Orkney islands council and Dumfries and Galloway regional council will receive further grant to complete their emergency centres in 1988–89. Details of other authorities receiving grant will not be available until the relevant expenditure has been approved.

  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will identify those local authorities that have received civil defence grant towards the construction or conversion of emergency centres during each of the years 1984–85, 1985–86, 1986–87 and 1987–88; and if he will indicate the scale of the expenditure involved in each year.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The information is not available in this form for 1984–85 or 1985–86. In 1986–87, grant towards the construction or conversion of emergency centres was paid to Grampian and Borders regional councils and in 1987–88 to these two councils and to Dumfries and Galloway regional council and Roxburgh district council. Expenditure attracting grant was £92,064 in 1986–87 and is expected to be £433,514 in 1987–88.

  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many local authority emergency centres have been inspected by officials from his Department; and if he is satisfied with the facilities provided by local authorities for emergency communications and control.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  All the operational emergency centres have been visited by Scottish Office 404
  officials. Steps have been taken to remedy deficiencies in communications facilities identified as a result of these visits.

  Consulting Contracts
  Mr. Tim Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what was the total amount spent by his Department in 1987 on management and computer consultancy contracts, excluding hardware and software purchases.

  Mr. Rifkind
  In 1987 my Department spent £191,308 on management consultancy and £504,431 on computer consultancy.

  Rating Reform
  Dr. Moonie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he proposes to issue any guidance to community charge registration officers on the conduct of door-to-door canvassers, and on the information which they may legitimately request and record.

  Mr. Lang
  No. The training of canvassers is a matter for community charges registration officers. The information required to be supplied by responsible persons is set out in the inquiry form and supplementary inquiry form prescribed in schedules 3 and 4 respectively of the Community Charges (Registration) (Scotland) Regulations 1988.

  Dr. Moonie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what provision he will make to require community charge registration officers to inform persons liable for a community charge of the identity of the responsible person who has been asked to supply information about them.

  Mr. Lang
  None.

  Dr. Moonie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland (1) whether he proposes to publish, or to encourage community charge registration officers to publish, any advice to members of the public who may be considering appealing against designation as responsible persons in terms of section 17(6) of the Abolition of Domestic Rates (Scotland) Act 1987, including advice about the evidence which might be considered relevant to such an appeal;

  (2) whether he proposes to publish any further guidance to community charge registration officers on the consideration which they should take into account in determining whom it would be appropriate to designate as the responsible person in relation to any premises.

  Mr. Lang
  Under section 17(6) of the Abolition of Domestic Rates Etc. (Scotland) Act 1987 the responsible person will be either the owner-occupier or tenant-occupier of the premises. In the small number of cases where this might give rise to difficulties, the registration officer may designate any other person to be the responsible person. The provisions of the Act are flexible enough to allow registration officers to arrive at sensible decisions in these cases and it is therefore unlikely that there will be many appeals against designation as a responsible person.

  The considerations which registration officers will take into account in making any designation, and the evidence which may be relevant to any appeals, will vary according

  405
  to the circumstances of individual cases. My right hon. and learned Friend does not, therefore, intend to publish any advice or guidance on these matters.

  Dr. Moonie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he proposes that the amounts of interest payments and surcharges owed in connection with a liability to pay community charge for a back-dated period should be eligible for rebate under the community charge rebate scheme.

  Mr. Lang
  No.

  Dr. Moonie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will take steps to require community charge registration officers not to impose interest charges or surcharges on persons who have arrears or back-dated liability for payment of community charge as a result of release from prison following trial, after a period on remand.

  Mr. Lang
  The arrangements for interest to be charged on backdated community charges and for the imposition of surcharges in certain circumstances are laid down in Section 18 of the Abolition of Domestic Rates Etc. (Scotland) Act 1987. My right hon. and learned Friend is considering whether prisoners on remand should be exempt from the personal community charge.

  Dr. Moonie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what powers a non-resident or institutional owner or tenant of premises designated as a responsible person for the provision of information on the occupiers of those premises in terms of section 17(6)(b) of the Abolition of Domestic Rates (Scotland) Act 1987 will have to obtain information required by the registration officer; and what penalties the occupiers will incur if they refuse to supply the responsible person with information.

  Mr. Lang
  Under section 17(6)(b) of the Abolition of Domestic Rates Etc. (Scotland) Act 1987, either the owner of the premises, the tenant-occupier or, any non-occupancy tenant with a lease for 12 months or more will he the responsible person. Only in the few cases where this might give rise to difficulty will the registration officer designate another person to be the responsible person.

  A responsible person has no specific powers to require another person resident in the premises to provide information for community charge registration purposes. There are no penalties for refusing to provide the responsible person with information. The information required is however straightforward and it is unlikely that responsible persons will be unable to supply it.

  Dr. Moonie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what guidelines his Department will issue to community charge registration officers on the information which they will be able to require the police force to supply them with; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Lang
  The Abolition of Domestic Rates Etc. (Scotland) Act 1987 gives community charges registration officers no powers to require the police to supply them with information.

  Dr. Moonie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland whether community charge registration officers will be able to delegate their powers to door-to-door canvassers employed by local authorities to obtain information from members of the public.
  406
  Mr. Lang
  Members of the registration officer's staff may assist with the handling of inquiry forms, but do not have the powers of registration officers. Such powers may be exercised only by the registration officer himself or by any depute registration officer appointed by a regional or islands council under section 12(3) of the Abolition of Domestic Rates Etc. (Scotland) Act 1987.

  Free School Meals
  Dr. Godman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many children currently receive free school meals in(a) Greenock, (b) Port Glasgow and (c) Strathclyde region.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  Details relating to free school meals in Strathclyde region are collected centrally on an education division basis and the latest information available, taken from the 1987 annual census, is set out in the table.

  Division

  Number of children receiving free school meals

  Argyll & Bute

  1,560

  Ayr

  13,266

  Dumbarton

  9,340

  Glasgow (city)

  34,671

  Lanark

  16,823

  Renfrew

  11,702

  Total (Strathclyde Region)

  87,362

  European Year of the Environment
  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what contribution his Department has made to the European Year of the Environment.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  My Department made a contribution of £30,000 in support of the work of the EYE Scottish sub-committee. The secretariat of the subcommittee was provided by the Countryside Commission for Scotland. In addition, EYE activity in Scotland attracted financial support from the Countryside Commission for Scotland under its normal grant scheme arrangements, and a further sum of £50,000 was allocated from the United Kingdom EYE fund.

  AIDS and Drug Misuse
  Mr. Allan Stewart
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement on AIDS and drug misuse in Scotland.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  The Government take the problem of AIDS and drug misuse in Scotland very seriously. Of those who have chosen to be tested for HIV infection, over 50 per cent. are intravenous drug misusers, whereas the corresponding proportion for the United Kingdom as a whole is only 7 per cent.; and over 20 per cent. of those found to be infected in Scotland are women, the great majority of whom are intravenous drug misusers. We have taken a number of measures, and further measures are in hand, to tackle the related problems of AIDS and drug misuse in Scotland.

  We have devoted considerable resources to our public education campaign on AIDS and drug misuse. One of the main themes of the AIDS campaign has been the dangers

  407
  of transmission of HIV infection by the sharing of injecting equipment, and the phase of the campaign running from September to December 1987 stressed this. Furture phases of the campaign will seek to reinforce this important message. In February, we launched a further stage of the information and education campaign against drug misuse in Scotland. Since its inception in 1985 about £1·4 million has been spent on the campaign which seeks to discourage young people from any involvement with drugs and to promote a healthier lifestyle. We shall continue to give a high priority to the campaign, an essential element of which is aimed at improving the knowledge and awareness of professionals who work with young people.

  The incidence of drug misuse in Scotland increased rapidly in the 1980s and services for the treatment and rehabilitation of drug misusers have had to develop from a low base in response to the this problem. A wide range of mainly community-based services has developed quickly in the last three or four years, many of them with the support of central Government funds earmarked for the purpose. Over £1 million was made available in 1987–88 specifically for the support of drug misuse services and a similar sum will be made available in 1988–89. This includes an additional £300,000 in each of these two years specifically to take account of the extra demand on services caused by the spread of HIV infection.

  We have also promoted the setting up of needle exchange arrangements on an experimental basis. Three schemes were set up last year in Scotland — in Edinburgh, Glasgow and Dundee—to provide counselling for drug misusers and clean equipment on an exchange basis in appropriate cases. The scheme in Dundee has been closed because of various difficulties, including trouble with clients, and the scheme in Glasgow has encountered local opposition and low take-up. The scheme in Edinburgh has been more successful. In the course of monitoring the experimental schemes, however, it has become clear that another possible approach to needle exchange is through sales by community pharmacists, a number of whom already sell equipment to drug misusers. Accordingly, I propose to approach the Scottish department of the Pharmaceutical Society of Great Britain in the near future to discuss with them the contribution which sales by pharmacists might make towards the wider availability of clean equipment. In pursuing this approach, we shall be bearing in mind the importance to pharmacists of having the support of health boards, both in relation to the medical and counselling support facilities for drug misusers, and in relation to disposal arrangements for used equipment.

  As regards the two needle exchange schemes which are still in operation—those in Edinburgh and Glasgow—Lothian and Greater Glasgow health boards have been informed that, although central funding of the schemes will not continue beyond 31 March when the formal period of monitoring and assessment is due to end, they may continue to operate the schemes if they consider this to be appropriate in local circumstances. So far as further needle exchange arrangements by health boards are concerned, we are not yet in a position to reach general conclusions on whether any extension of the existing arrangements would be appropriate. However, if any health board considers that, notwithstanding possible
  408
  developments in the pharmacy-based field, there is a need for such facilities in their area, we shall be prepared to consider specific proposals.

  My right hon. Friend the Minister for Health has set out today the Government's response to the main issues raised by the report on AIDS and drug misuse by the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs.

  The report expresses particular concern about the position in Scotland and makes a number of criticisms and recommendations about the provision of services for drug misusers and the measures needed to prevent the spread of HIV infection among and from this group. In my view the chapter of the report on Scotland does not give an entirely balanced assessment of the situation in Scotland nor does it take into account the different historical background to the drugs problem here. In particular, the report fails to acknowledge that many drug misuse services in Scotland have already adapted their approach in response to the problems presented by the spread of HIV infection among drug misusers. I am however sending copies of the report to health boards and local authorities and to various representative bodies. I also propose to hold early discussions with the Scottish division of the Royal College of Psychiatrists about the report including its recommendation on the need for increased input to the management and treatment of drug misuse by the psychiatric services in Scotland. A working group of the National Medical Consultative Committee is currently exploring the medical role in the prevention and management of drug misuse and is expected to report later this year.

  I shall keep the position in Scotland under close review and, taking into account the advisory council's detailed recommendations, I shall consider what further action it may be appropriate for the Government to take.

  Superglass Insulations Company
  Mr. McLeish
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what is the nature and extent of the Scottish Development Agency involvement in the Superglass Insulations Company in Clydebank and Stirling.

  Mr. Lang
  The Scottish Development Agency has been involved with the Superglass Insulations Company Ltd(a) as owner of the premises occupied by the company in Clydebank, and (b) in the provision of assistance towards training associated with an investment project in Stirling.

  Attraction of Industry
  Mr. McLeish
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will estimate the amount of expenditure to be paid out by his Department or agencies responsible to his Department in attracting industry to Scotland in each of the years 1988–89, 1989–90 and 1990–91.

  Mr. Lang
  [holding answer 10 March 1988]: Locate in Scotland is the Government organisation staffed jointly by the Scottish Development Agency and the industry department for Scotland, which has responsibility for the attraction of industry to Scotland. The estimated expenditure for Locate in Scotland at current prices in each of the years 1988–89, 1989–90 and 1990–91 is as follows:

  409

  £ million

  Year

  Estimated expenditure

  1988–89

  4·26

  1989–90

  4·26

  1990–91

  4·26

  Figures for 1989–90 and 1990–91 are provisional.

  Mr. McLeish
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how much money has been spent in each of the last 10 years by his Department or agencies responsible to his Department in attracting industry to Scotland, in both cash and real terms.

  Mr. Lang
  [holding answer 10 March 1988]: Locate in Scotland is the Government organisation staffed jointly by the Scottish Development Agency and the industry department for Scotland, which has responsibility for the attraction of industry to Scotland. The cost of running LIS for the last four years in terms of salaries, administration expenses, travel, marketing and advertising are shown in actual cash terms and by conversion to a constant base of 1987–88 price levels in the table.

  Year

  Cash

  1987–88 price base

  1984–85

  3,268,804

  3,723,822

  1985–86

  3,484,781

  3,747,882

  1986–87

  3,768,716

  3,930,394

  1 1987–88

  3,594,033

  3,594,033

  1 To 29 February 1988.

  Before 1984–85 costs were not held in such a format that those attributable to LIS could be isolated.

DEFENCE

  Trident (Lost Parts)
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when he expects to reply to the letter from the hon. Member for Linlithgow of 4 March 1988 on the loss of Trident parts in the Mull of Galloway.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  I responded to the points raised in the hon. Member's letter of 4 March in a letter dated 24 March.

  Port of London
  Ms. Gordon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will publish in the Official Report the details which are available of specific visits by ships and submarines of the United States navy to the port of London in each year since 1983 giving location of their moorings.

  Mr. Ian Stewart
  There have been no visits to the port of London by ships and submarines of the United States navy since 1983.

  Ms. Gordon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will publish in the Official Report a list of Royal Navy vessels which have visited the Port of London since January 1986, giving the location of their moorings.

  Mr. Ian Stewart
  Since January 1986, the following Royal Navy vessels have visited the port of London:410

  Vessel

  Mooring

  1986

  HMS Charybdis

  HMS Belfast

  HMS Sandpiper

  Tower Pier

  HMS Brazen

  HMS Belfast

  HMS Yarmouth

  HMS Belfast

  HMS Leeds Castle

  HMS Belfast

  HMS Orkney

  HMS Belfast

  HMS Guernsey

  HMS Belfast

  HMS Stubbington

  HMS Belfast

  HMS Hodgeston

  Tower Pier

  HMS Ribble

  HMS Belfast

  HMS Dovey

  HMS Belfast

  HMS Blackwater

  HMS Belfast

  HMS Roebuck

  HMS Belfast

  HMS Hunter

  Greenwich Pier

  HMS Brave

  HMS Belfast

  HMS Hunter

  Tower Pier

  HMS Iveston

  Tower Pier

  1987

  HMS Ark Royal

  Greenwich Pier

  HMS Chiddingfold

  HMS Belfast

  HMS Cleopatra

  HMS Belfast

  HMS York

  HMS Belfast

  HMS Bossington

  Tower Pier

  HMS Fife

  HMS Belfast

  HMS Naiad

  HMS Belfast

  HMS Edinburgh

  HMS Belfast

  HMS London

  HMS Belfast

  HMS Lindisfarne

  HMS Belfast

  HMS Rothesay

  HMS Belfast

  HMS Chaser

  HMS Belfast

  HMS Chiddingfold

  HMS Belfast

  HMS Manchester

  HMS Belfast

  HMS Leeds Castle

  HMS Belfast

  HMS Birmingham

  Greenwich Pier

  1988

  HMS Sandpiper

  Tower Pier

  HMS Peterel

  Tower Pier

  HMS Jersey

  HMS Belfast

  Scorriton Down
  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what inquiries are being undertaken into allegations of malpractice among bomb disposal teams operating at Scorriton Down.

  Mr. Freeman
  My Department is not aware of any such allegations and neither the Ministry of Defence police nor the military authorities are conducting an inquiry in relation to personnel at Scorriton Down.

  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, pursuant to his answer of 9 March to the hon. Member for South Hams,Official Report, columns 214–15, if he can give an expected date for the recommencement of clearance operations at Scorriton Down.

  Mr. Freeman
  It is not generally our practice to give advance details of such operations.

  US Army Tactical Missile System
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence whether the United States army tactical missile system or a version of it has been offered to United Kingdom forces; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  No.

  RAF Greenham Common
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what consultations have taken place between the Ministry of Defence police and the police forces of Wiltshire, Hampshire and Thames Valley on the use of Ministry of Defence police officers in the policing of protests against cruise missile training exercises from RAF Greenham Common; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  Frequent meetings and consultations take place between the MOD police and the police forces named on these and other operational policing requirements.

  RAF Catering Services
  Mr. Menzies Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he has any plans to privatise the catering services at Royal Air Force establishments in Scotland; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  Contract catering was introduced at RAF Turnhouse and RAF Pitreavie Castle in 1986; there are at present no plans to extend it to other RAF stations in Scotland.

  Consultancy Contracts
  Mr. Tim Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what was the total amount spent by his Department in 1987 on management and computer consultancy contracts, excluding hardware and software purchases.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  The Ministry of Defence spent approximately £16 million on management and computer consultancies during 1987.

  Namibia (Uranium)
  Mr. Hood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is, for each year since 1976, the total amount of uranium mined in Namibia which has been imported into Britain.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  None for my Department.

  Ex-gratia Payments
  Mr. Ashley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is his estimate of the likely cost of the ex-gratia payments that will now be made to service people who may have been disabled by negligence between 8 December 1986 and the coming into force of the Crown Proceedings (Armed Forces) Act 1987; from which departmental budget this money is coming; and under what authority these payments are made.

  Mr. Freeman
  It is not possible, at this stage, to estimate the likely cost of ex-gratia payments to service personnel injured or disabled as a result of incidents between 8 December 1986 and the coming into force of the Crown Proceedings (Armed Forces) Act 1987. This is primarily because we cannot know what the eventual level and incidence of claims will be, but also because negotiations on the majority of those claims received so far are still at a relatively early stage. The cost of such ex-gratia payments, which are made in accordance with the answer given by my right hon. Friend on 8 December 1986, will be met from Defence votes.
  412
  Mr. Ashley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what criteria are used to determine eligibility for ex-gratia payments that can now be paid to those disabled or injured through possible negligence between 8 December 1986 and the coming into force of the Crown Proceedings (Armed Forces) Act 1987; how many applications for these payments have been made; and how many payments have been made.

  Mr. Freeman
  Such payments will be determined in a way comparable to the settlement out of court of common law claims for damages, each one being considered and assessed to establish whether death or injury occurred in circumstances involving some degree of negligence on the part of the Crown. To date 85 claims have been received, the majority of which remain under negotiation. Five payments have so far been made, including an interim settlement.

  Service Personnel (Accidents)
  Mr. Ashley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what information he has as to the cause of the increase in 1985 in the number of service people invalided out of the forces following an accident.

  Mr. Freeman
  There was no prominent cause for the increase in the number of cases invalided from the services in 1985 other than injuries sustained during sporting activities and falls and so on. The corresponding figure for 1986 is now available and is 169, showing a slight decrease.

  Mr. Ashley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, pursuant to his replies of 10 March 1987 Official Report, columns 173–74, to the right hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South, how many of those service men who (a) were invalided out and (b) died, were involved in accidents or misadventures of such a nature that disciplinary action was taken after an inquiry.

  Mr. Freeman
  I regret that records are not kept in a way that would enable the information to be provided without disproportionate cost.

  AWACS Aircraft
  Mr. Wray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many jobs have been created in Britain as a result of the deal to buy AWACS aircraft from Boeing.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave to the hon. Member for Clackmannan (Mr. O'Neill) on 28 March 1988.

  Devonport Dockyard
  Mr. O'Neill
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what estimates were available to him before 11 June 1987 of the number of redundancies at Devonport dockyard which would follow the introduction of Devonport Management; and when he was first informed that the final number would be 3,400.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  The primary responsibility for manning levels in the royal dockyards rests with the contractors. For costing purposes, we had assumed 3,300 redundancies at Devonport over the seven years of the contract. However, as indicated by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence on 24 February 1987, the only firm information available to my Department before
  413
  11 June 1987 was that Devonport Management Ltd. expected some 2,300 job losses by about 1990. At that stage, DML thought there would be little effect during the first year or so. It was not until August 1987, following a review of programme adjustments, that DML made known its revised assessment of 3,400 job losses over a similar period, including some 2,000 in 1987–88. I understand that in its first year the company now expects to have reduced the work force by 1,850, all but 48 of these job losses being achieved by voluntary redundancy or natural wastage.

EMPLOYMENT

  Safety at Work (Brown Book)
  Mr. Harry Barnes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment whether he will provide the Health and Safety Commission with additional funding to enable it to make more easily available copies of the Brown Book guide to "Safety Representatives and Safety Committees Regulations".

  Mr. Nicholls
  The Health and Safety Commission has been given a gross provision of £109·2 million for 1988–89. This is a substanital increase of £6·7 million over the previously planned provision for that year. It is for the commission and its executive to decide how best to allocate their resouces. The booklet on safety representatives and safety committees is available, price £2.

  Specialist Inspectors
  Mr. Galbraith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what has been the change in the number of specialist inspectors in the Health and Safety Executive since 1979.

  Mr. Nicholls
  On 1 April 1979 there were 224 specialist inspectors employed in the Health and Safety Executive. On 1 March 1988 there were 218.

  Suffolk
  Mr. Yeo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what is the level of employment in Suffolk.

  Mr. Lee
  At September 1984, the latest date for which county estimates are available, there were 221,000 employees in employment in Suffolk.

  Non-Statutory Training Organisations
  Mr. McFall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how much Government money is received by non-statutory training organisations in the current year.

  Mr. Nicholls
  It is not possible to give total figures for Government support to non-statutory training organisations. Government funds made available to non-statutory training organisations through the Manpower Services Commission in 1987–88 included some £5·8 million for the improvement of the training infrastructure in their sectors. They also received substantial funds as YTS managing agents, including about £6 million from the MSC's large companies unit. details of funds allocated through MSC area offices are not available.
  414
  Mr. Sheerman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what steps are being taking in the light of recent reports to change non-statutory training organisations.

  Mr. Nicholls
  A recent report commissioned by the Manpower Services Commission concluded that the majority of non-statutory training organisations are effective, but made certain recommendations about how the performance of all the organisations might be improved. The Confederation of British Industry is currently consulting non-statutory training organisations about these recommendations My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State will consider further steps in the light of the outcome of these consultations, and the advice of the Manpower Services Commission.

  Job Vacancies
  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will publish an analysis of known job vacancies by skill category required.

  Mr. Lee
  I will arrange for a table showing the number of unfilled vacancies at jobcentres in Great Britain on 8 January 1988, analysed by occupation, to be published in the Official Report, Vacancies have risen by nearly 20 per cent. over the last year with increases for most occupations.

  Unfilled vacancies in Great Britain—8 January 1988

  Occupation description

  Number of vacancies

  Managerial

  10,699

  Nursing

  4,482

  Typing and Secretarial

  5,956

  Clerical and Machine Operators

  33,967

  Selling-Distribution

  22,493

  Selling-Others

  9,705

  Security and Protective Services

  5,122

  Catering

  29,665

  Cleaning and Personal Services

  30,288

  Farming and Fishing

  1,959

  Materials Processing-Textiles/Cloth

  562

  Materials Processing-Food

  2,226

  Metal Processing

  463

  Metal Processing-Others

  383

  Making/Repairing-Textiles/Cloth

  5,442

  Making/Repairing-Others

  5,226

  Machine Operator (Engineering)-Skilled

  3,401

  Machine Operator (Engineering)-Unskilled

  404

  Toolmakers/Fitters

  1,192

  Installation/Maintenance

  4,892

  Electricians

  3,088

  Electronic Technicians

  1,218

  Welding/Fabrication

  4,625

  Painting

  1,724

  Assembling/Packaging/Inspecting

  5,611

  Construction-Skilled

  5,203

  Construction-Unskilled

  1,855

  Mining and Quarrying

  119

  Transport Operators-HGV and PSV

  2,622

  Transport Operators-Others

  9,962

  Miscellaneous

  8,580

  Adult Training
  Mr. Wall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will make it his policy not to designate the adult training scheme under clause 26 of the Employment Bill in the lifetime of the current Parliament.
  415
  Dr. Moonie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will make it his policy not to designate the adult training scheme under clause 26 of the Employment Bill in the lifetime of the current Parliament.

  Mr. Ronnie Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will make it his policy not to designate the adult training scheme under clause 26 of the Employment Bill in the lifetime of the current Parliament.

  Mr. George Howarth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will make it his policy not to designate the adult training scheme under clause 26 of the Employment Bill in the lifetime of the current Parliament.

  Ms. Armstrong
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will make it his policy not to designate the adult training scheme under clause 26 of the Employment Bill in the lifetime of this Parliament.

  Mr. Fowler
  We have made it clear that the new employment training programme will be a voluntary one, and we have no plans to designate it.

  Mr. McAvoy
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment whether refusal to participate in the adult training scheme will be grounds for withdrawal of benefit under the availability for work test.

  Mr. Frank Cook
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment whether refusal to participate in the adult training scheme could be grounds for withdrawal of benefit under the availability for work test.

  Mr. Caborn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment whether refusal to participate in the adult training scheme will be grounds for withdrawal of benefit under the availability for work test.

  Mr. Chris Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment whether refusal to participate in the adult training scheme will be grounds for withdrawal of benefit under the availability for work test.

  Mr. Haynes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment whether refusal to participate in the adult training scheme will be grounds for withdrawal of benefit under the availability for work test.

  Mr. Nicholls
  We have made it clear that, as recommended by the Manpower Services Commission, the new employment training programme will be a voluntary one, and we have no plans to designate it as "Approved Training" for the purposes of section 20 of the Social Security Act 1975. Additionally, refusal to take up a place in the programme will not by itself be grounds for withdrawal of benefit under the availability for work test.

  Mrs. Clwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment which schemes he intends to designate as approved training under clause 26 of the Employment Bill.
  416
  Mr. Nellist
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment which schemes he intends to designate as approved training under clause 26 of the Employment Bill.

  Mr. Turner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment which schemes he intends to designate as approved training under clause 26 of the Employment Bill.

  Mr. Doran
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment which schemes he intends to designate as approved training under clause 26 of the Employment Bill.

  Mr. Ray Powell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment which schemes he intends to designate as approved training under clause 26 of the Employment Bill.

  Mr. Cope
  The Secretary of State has no plans to designate any schemes.

  Mr. Grocott
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what representations he has received asking him to reconsider his decision to require those participating in the adult training scheme to pay the first £5 of their travel expenses.

  Mr. Flannery
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what representations he has received asking him to reconsider his decision to require those participating in the adult training scheme to pay the first £5 of their travel expenses.

  Mr. Litherland
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what representations he has received asking him to reconsider his decision to require those participating in the adult training scheme to pay the first £5 of their travel expenses.

  Mr. Nicholls
  None. It was the unanimous recommendation of the Manpower Services Commission that only participants' travel expenses in excess of £5 should be met, and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has accepted this.

  Mr. Morley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what special arrangements are included for disabled people and those with special needs under the new adult training programme.

  Mr. Nicholls
  The new employment training programme will be locally planned and delivered in line with local needs, including the needs of disabled people. Where appropriate, supplementary funding will be available to assist in meeting higher costs associated with training people with special needs. There will also be special eligibility arrangements for disabled people. In addition, a range of specific help for trainees with disabilities will be available in the form of special aids to employment, adaptations to premises, a communicator service for deaf trainees and a personal reader service for blind trainees.
  417
  Mr. Graham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what representations he has received asking him to reconsider his decision to pay £10 per week plus benefit to those who participate in the adult training scheme.

  Mr. Foulkes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what representations he has received asking him to reconsider his decision to pay £10 per week plus benefit to those who participate in the adult training schemes.

  Mr. Nicholls
  We have received a number of representations about the level of the training allowance to be paid to participants on the new employment training programme. The Government's decisions on the allowance, and on the other payments to be made to participants, implement in full the unanimous recommendations of the Manpower Services Commission. The allowance will give participants a lead of £10–£12 a week over their benefit entitlement and will ensure that they will be better off on the programme than remaining unemployed and on benefit.

  Mr. Bellingham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he has any plans to meet the chairman of the Training Commission to discuss the new integrated adult training scheme; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Nicholls
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has regular contact with the chairman of the Manpower Services Commission, which is being renamed the Training Commission in the Employment Bill, to consider a number of matters, including the new employment training programme. The Manpower Services Commission is currently working on the detailed arrangements to introduce the new programme from 5 September.

  Vacancies (London)
  Mr. Hanley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many vacancies there are in jobcentres in the London area; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Lee
  On 5 February 1988, the number of unfilled vacancies, excluding vacancies on the community programme, at jobcentres in the Greater London region was 33,800. This represents an increase of over 3 per cent. in the past year.

  Labour Statistics
  Mr. Hunter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what are the latest unemployment statistics for the Basingstoke-Alton travel-to-work area.

  Mr. Lee
  On 11 February 1988 the number of unemployed claimants in the Basingstoke and Alton travel-to-work area was 2,500, or 3·3 per cent. of all employees in employment plus the unemployed.

  Mr. Cran
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what has been the change in the level of unemployment in the last 12 months in Yorkshire and Humberside.

  Mr. Lee
  On 11 February 1988 the number of unemployed claimants in the Yorkshire and Humberside region, seasonally adjusted and excluding school leavers was 245,700, a fall of 46,200 over the last 12 months.
  418
  Mr. Andrew Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will make a statement on the current levels of employment.

  Mr. Lee
  By September 1987, the latest date for which figures are available, the employed labour force in Great Britain had risen for 18 consecutive quarters to 24,505,000. This represents an increase of 1,508,000 since March 1983. The figures have been adjusted for the effects of seasonal variations. The employed labour force is the sum of employees in employment, the self-employed and Her Majesty's forces.

  Mr. Devlin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will make a statement on the changes in unemployment levels in the northern region in the last 12 months.

  Mr. Lee
  On 11 February 1988, the number of unemployed claimants in the northern region, seasonally adjusted and excluding school leavers was 187,300, a fall of 30,400 over the last 12 months.

  Mr. Canavan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what has been the percentage increase in unemployment since May 1979.

  Mr. Lee
  Between May 1979 and February 1988, the number of adult unemployed claimants in the United Kingdom, on a consistent basis, increased by 119·7 per cent.

  Mr. Duffy
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will publish the latest unemployment figures for South Yorkshire and Sheffield travel-to-work area expressed as a percentage.

  Mr. Lee
  On 11 February 1988, the numbers of unemployed claimants in the county of South Yorkshire, and the Sheffield travel-to-work area expressed as a percentage of employees in employment plus the unemployed were 16·1 per cent. and 14·1 per cent. respectively.

  Mr. Robert G. Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will make a statement on the current employment situation among the 18 to 25-year-old age group.

  Mr. Lee
  In January 1988 there were 774,000 unemployed claimants aged 18 to 24 in the United Kingdom, 197,000 fewer than in January 1987.

  Analysis of the preliminary results of the labour force survey carried out in the spring of 1987 shows that there were an estimated 4,352,000 persons aged 18 to 24 in employment in Great Britain, 164,000 more than in spring 1986.

  Mr. Gill
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many people are currently employed; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Lee
  In September 1987, the latest date for which figures are available, there were 24,505,000 people in the employed labour force in Great Britain. This represents an increase of 1,508,000 since March 1983. The figures have been adjusted for the effects of seasonal variations. The employed labour force is the sum of employees in employment, the self-employed and Her Majesty's forces.

  Mr. Sumberg
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will make a statement on the number of people currently employed in the north-west.
  419
  Mr. Day
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will make a statement on the number of people currently employed in the north-west.

  Mr. Lee
  In September 1987, the latest date for which figures are available, there were 2,550,000 people in the civilian employed labour force in the north-west region. This represents an increase of 26,000 since March 1983.

  The figures have not been adjusted for the effects of seasonal variations. The civilian employed labour force is the sum of employees in employment and the self-employed.

  Mr. Andy Stewart
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what has been the change in the level of unemployment in the last 12 months in the east midlands.

  Mr. Lee
  On 11 February 1988 the number of unemployed claimants in the east midlands region, seasonally adjusted and excluding school leavers, was 158,400, a fall of 32,900 over the last 12 months.

  Mr. Knapman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what has been the change in the level of unemployment in the last 12 months in the west midlands.

  Mr. Lee
  On 11 February 1988 the number of unemployed claimants in the west midlands region, seasonally adjusted and excluding school leavers, was 258,100–9·9 per cent. of the working population. This was the first time unemployment has fallen below 10 per cent. since April 1981 and is a fall of 61,100 over the last 12 months.

  Mr. Latham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment whether he will make a statement on the current trend in unemployment.

  Mr. Bowis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will make a statement on the current levels of unemployment in the United Kingdom.

  Mr. Parry
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will make a statement on the latest unemployment figures.

  Mr. Lee
  The seasonally adjusted level of adult unemployment fell further by 33,400 between January and February, to 2,531,300, the lowest figure on a consistent basis since February 1982. The figure has now fallen for 19 consecutive months, by 679,000 in total since July 1986, the largest sustained fall on record.

  Agricultural Inspectors
  Mr. Wilson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what has been the change in the number of Her Majesty's agricultural inspectors in the Health and Safety Executive since 1979.

  Mr. Nicholls
  On 1 April 1979 there were 190 agricultural inspectors in the Health and Safety Executive. On 1 March 1988 there were 158. Recruitment to the inspectorate is at present under way.

  Skillcentres
  Mr. Gareth Wardell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment when he anticipates making a statement on the future of skillcentres.
  420
  Mr. Cope
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Employment announced a review of the Skills Training Agency at the end of last year and has recently received an initial report which he is considering.

  Strikes
  Mr. Roger King
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many days were lost through strikes in November 1987 and in November 1978; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Lee
  I refer my hon. Friend to the reply given earlier by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State to my hon. Friend the Member for Portsmouth, South (Mr. Martin).

  Enterprise Allowance Scheme
  Mr. David Shaw
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will make a statement on the number of jobs that have been created through the enterprise allowance scheme since its inception.

  Mr. Cope
  The information is not available in the form requested. Since the inception of the enterprise allowance scheme in 1982 over 320,000 unemployed people have been helped to start their own business. Latest survey evidence shows that for every 100 businesses continuing six months after the allowance has ended, 71 people, in addition to the recipient of the allowance and any business partner, are employed at that time. Two years after the allowance has ceased, the number of additional people employed rises to 114 per 100 firms surviving.

  The surveys also show that for those completing a full year on the scheme 74 per cent. were still trading six months after the allowance ended and 65 per cent. two years after the allowance has ceased.

  Youth Training Scheme
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment on what business he has calculated the briding allowance provided to young people while they wait for a YTS scheme.

  Mr. Cope
  The proposed YTS bridging allowance is designed to provide short-term payments for young people who have to wait for a few weeks for a YTS place after leaving a job or a previous YTS place. The allowance will be paid for a maximum of eight weeks, during which time the offer of a YTS place will be made. The allowance will be set initially at £15 per week, more than twice the level of child benefit.

  Mr. Martlew
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what proportion of YTS leavers enter employment with employers who did not supply their training or work experience.

  Mr. Cope
  The latest results from the Manpower Services Commission's regular follow-up surveys of YTS leavers show that, of those young people who left YTS schemes between April 1986 and September 1987, 30 per cent. were in full time employment with an employer who did not supply their training or work experience (or were self-employed) at the time of the surveys.

  Miss Lestor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will reimburse all travel costs to persons on YTS.
  421
  Mr. Cope
  There are no plans to reimburse all travel costs to persons on YTS.

  Mr. Patnick
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what are the latest figures for YTS trainees going into work, or further education and training.

  Mr. Cope
  The Manpower Services Commission conducts regular follow-up surveys of all YTS leavers. The latest results show that, of those who left YTS schemes between April 1986 and September 1987, 75 per cent. were in work, further education or in training when surveyed.

  Dr. Godman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what percentage of young people receive their first choice option of YTS schemes.

  Mr. Cope
  I regret that this information is not available.

  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what percentage of YTS leavers enter employment with the same employer who provided their training or work experience.

  Mr. Cope
  The latest results from the Manpower Services Commission's regular follow-up surveys on YTS leavers show that, of those young people who left YTS schemes between April 1986 and September 1987, 26 per cent. were full-time in employment with the employer who ran their YTS scheme or provided work experience at the time of the surveys.

  Ms. Quinn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what are the most recent estimates of job substitution rates for YTS.

  Mr. Cope
  The latest estimates based on evidence from the 1985–86 YTS providers survey show a rate of job substitution of 6 per cent. This represents the proportion of training places that have replaced jobs for adults.

  Mr. Boyes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what percentage of YTS leavers attain a recognised qualification.

  Mr. Cope
  The latest results from the 100 per cent. follow-up survey of YTS leavers in the period April 1986 to September 1987 show that 20 per cent. of leavers gained a qualification. However, during this period 90 per cent. of leavers from YTS were early leavers who had not completed their training course and, therefore, were not representative of all trainees. Most young people will not complete their two-year training programme until after March 1988. A national survey of those trainees who have stayed into their second year shows that 54 per cent. had already gained a qualification.

  Mr. Robert B. Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will make a further statement on the progress of the YTS scheme.

  Mr. Cope
  The beginning of April marks the second anniversary of the two-year YTS. During the past two years, very important progress has been made. At any one time there are on average more than 400,000 young people in training, compared with 285,000 in 1985; and of course YTS now offers two years of training. In addition, of those young people who left YTS schemes between April 1986 and September 1987, a total of 75 per cent. went into work or futher education and training.

  We are continuing to improve further the high quality of training on offer. Over 50 per cent. of trainees entering
  422
  their second year on YTS had already gained a vocational qualification, and all YTS managing agents have to secure approved training organisations status if they are to continue to work with YTS.

  Overall, YTS is making a major contribution to meeting the needs of employers and the wishes of young people. The task now is the ensure that YTS provides the opportunity for all young people who enter the labour market to gain the skills and qualifications which will enhance their job prospects arid meet the demands of the labour market.

  Professional and Executive Register
  Mr. Ian Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will make a statement on the progress of the privatisation of Professional and Executive Recruitment.

  Mr. Cope
  I refer my hon. Friend to the reply given by right hon. Friend the Secretary of State to my hon. Friend the Member for Gillingham (Mr. Couchman) on 9 March at column 220.

  Skilled Labour
  Sir Anthony Grant
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what proposals he has to encourage more skilled labour to become available in East Anglia and the south-east generally; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Nicholls
  To secure the skills they need employers must provide proper incentives for people to acquire those skills, develop internal recruitment and make the necessary investment in training and upgrading of skills.

  The Government have given a lead by more than doubling their investment in vocational education and training since 1979, especially through YTS for the 16 and 17-year-old age group, and now the new £1·4 billion employment training programme for unemployed adults, announced in the White Paper "Training for Employment" (Cm 316).

  In East Anglia and the south-east generally more than 51,000 young people are expected to receive training under YTS during this financial year with expenditure planned at £117 million. In addition, 47,000 unemployed adults will have received skills training during the same period at a cost of £31 million. Training under YTS and the forthcoming employment training programme responds to the skill needs of local labour markets.

  Literacy Tuition
  Mr. Burns
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many pilot projects offering intensive literacy tuition to unemployed people are being set up; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Nicholls
  There are currently seven pilot projects operating which offer intense literacy tuition to unemployed adults. These have been set up under the wider opportunities training programme. They will assist the development of literacy training with the employment training programme for unemployed people that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has announced for September.

  Factory Inspectors
  Mr. Mullin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many factory inspectors the Health and Safety Executive had in place on 1 March.

  Mr. Nicholls
  On 1 March 1988 there were 598 factory inspectors in post in the Health and Safety Executive.

  Mr. McLeish
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what has been the change in the number of Her Majesty's factory inspectors since 1979.

  Mr. Nicholls
  On 1 April 1979 there were 742 factory inspectors in post in the Health and Safety Executive. On 1 March 1988 there were 598. Recruitment to the inspectorate is at present under way.

  Mr. McAllion
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will publish in the Official Report, the numbers of Health and Safety Executive factory inspectors in (a) Scotland and (b) the United Kingdom in each year since the introduction of the Health and Safety at Work etc Act.

  Mr. Nicholls
  The numbers are as follows:

  Year(1 January)

  Factory Inspectors in Scotland

  Factory Inspectors in Great Britain1

  1976

  53

  568

  1977

  55

  664

  1978

  61

  691

  1979

  61

  709

  1980

  68

  756

  1981

  65

  743

  1982

  61

  690

  1983

  56

  662

  1984

  51

  634

  1985

  51

  638

  1986

  50

  614

  1987

  46

  626

  19882

  43

  598

  1 The Health and Safety Executive does not enforce health and safety legislation in Northern Ireland. Figures provided cover England, Scotland and Wales.

  2 1st March 1988.

  Construction Industry
  Mr. Bill Michie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment when he last met the Chief Inspector of Factories to consider ways of improving safety in the construction industry.

  Mr. Nicholls
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State last met the Chief Inspector of Factories on 2 December 1987, when one of the subjects discussed was the initiative being taken by the Health and Safety's to encourage the construction industry to improve its safety record.

  Tourism
  Mr. Ken Hargreaves
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will make a statement on the number of people employed in tourism and tourism-related industry in the county of Lancashire.

  Mr. Lee
  There were an estimated 37,000 employees in employment in tourism-related industries in the county of Lancashire in September 1984, the latest date for which 424
  information is available. This figure does not include the self-employed, for whom a comparable estimate is not available.

  Mr. Atkinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he is satisfied with the workings of section 4 tourist grants; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Lee
  A recent study by Department of Employment economists showed that the section 4 scheme has a significant effect in supporting local and regional employment, and makes a contribution to helping the tourism industry operate more efficiently and effectively. We continue to keep the scheme under review.

  Mr. Brandon-Bravo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what information he has on the rate per week at which jobs are being created in the tourism sector.

  Mr. Lee
  No information is available on the rate per week at which jobs in the tourism sector are created. However, there has been a net increase of 43,000 in the estimated number of employees in employment in tourcism-related industries over the year to September 1987. These figures exclude the self-employed, for whom comparable estimates are not available.

  Availability for Work Test
  Mr. Heffer
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will list the grounds for withdrawal of benefit under the availability for work test.

  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment whether he will list the grounds for withdrawal of benefit under the availability for work test.

  Mr. Lee
  The requirement that a person be available for work is a fundamental condition for the receipt of unemployment benefits. It was re-enacted most recently in the Social Security Act 1975.

  The condition means that a person must be available for work with an employer and must not restrict their job-seeking, in terms of the hours, days, pay, location or type of employment they are willing to accept, to such an extent that they effectively have no reasonable prospect of securing work within those restrictions.

  Mr. Meacher
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what plans he has to extend the application of the availability for work test.

  Mr. Lee
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply given by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State to my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, North-West (Mr. Stern),Official Report, Monday 14 December, at columns 337–38. This is an area which I shall continue to keep under review.

  Health and Safety Executive
  Mr. Henderson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what steps have been taken to improve morale in the Health and Safety Executive.

  Mr. Nicholls
  While the Director General of the Health and Safety Executive accepts that there are some problems arising from the pay and promotion prospects of certain groups of staff, he does not take the view that there is anything generally wrong with morale in the executive.

  Health and Safety
  Mr. Flood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what priority he accords to reliance on self-regulation in maintaining health and safety at the workplace.

  Mr. Nicholls
  Self-regulation is fundamental to the operation of the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974. The Health and Safety Commission itself includes representatives of employers and employees as well as local authorities, and its proposals for regulations and codes are based on extensive consultation with those affected by them. Employers are responsible under the Act for applying its general provisions to their work force and for preparing written health and safety policies, and are subject to such inspection as the commission considers generally appropriate.

  Mr. Andrew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment whether he will make available the

  1. Location and address of HSE HQs, area offices and research and laboratory services division sites

  Location

  Address

  Headquarters

  London

  Baynards House, 1 Chepstow Place, London, W2

  Merseyside

  Stanley Precinct, Bootle, Merseyside

  Area offices

  01 South West

  Inter City House, Mitchell Lane, Victoria Street, Bristol

  02 South

  Priestley House, Priestley Road, Basingstoke

  03 South East

  3 East Grinstead House, London Road, East Grinstead, West Sussex

  041South East

  Chancel House, Neasden Lane, London, NW10

  051 London North

  Maritime House, 1 Linton Road, Barking, Essex

  061 London South

  1 Long Lane, London SE1

  07 East Anglia

  39 Baddow Road, Chelmsford, Essex

  08 North Home Counties

  14 Cardiff Road, Luton, Bedfordshire

  09 East Midlands

  Belgrave House, 1 Greyfriars, Northampton

  10 West Midlands

  McLaren Building, 2 Masshose Circus, Queensway, Birmingham

  11 Wales

  Brunel House, 2 Fitzalan Road, Cardiff

  12 Marches

  The Marches House, Midway, Newcastle-under-Lyme, Staffordshire

  13 North Midlands

  Birkbeck House, Trinity Square, Nottingham

  14 South Yorkshire

  Sovereign House, 40 Silver Street, Sheffield

  15 West and North Yorkshire

  8 St. Pauls Street, Leeds

  16 Greater Manchester

  Quay House, Quay Street, Manchester

  17 Merseyside

  The Triad, Stanley Road, Bootle

  18 North West

  Victoria House, Ormskirk Road, Preston

  19 North East

  Arden House, Regent Centre, Gosforth, Newcastle-upon-Tyne

  20 Scotland East

  Belford House, 59 Belford Road, Edinburgh

  21 Scotland West

  314 St. Vincent Street, Glasgow

  Research and Laboratory Services Division

  London

  403–405 Edgware Road, London, NW2

  Buxton

  Harpur Hill, Buxton, Derbyshire

  Sheffield

  Broad Lane, Sheffield

  1 Areas 04, 05 and 06 under command of Senior Area Director in Area 06. Inspectors and support staff cover all three locations.

  Posts in the health and safety executive

  1 January in each year

  Location

  1978

  1979

  1980

  1981

  1982

  1983

  1984

  1985

  1986

  1987

  1988

  Headquarters

  1,340

  1,362

  1,349

  1,305

  1,266

  1,316

  1,341

  1,369

  1,382

  1,409

  1,369

  Areas

  01

  128

  128

  130

  122

  105

  101

  100

  95

  93

  91

  91

  02

  68

  67

  79

  66

  59

  63

  65

  76

  74

  76

  71

  03

  87

  104

  109

  115

  106

  101

  104

  99

  92

  95

  91

  04

  72

  57

  70

  56

  50

  47

  46

  51

  29

  27

  23

  05

  57

  50

  49

  64

  59

  57

  74

  50

  66

  64

  58

  06

  103

  107

  93

  85

  82

  79

  72

  70

  74

  75

  07

  70

  68

  69

  67

  61

  57

  59

  73

  76

  73

  61

  08

  108

  135

  134

  129

  120

  108

  108

  96

  93

  101

  92

  426
  research study on the Health and Safety Executive carried out by the socio-legal studies department at Wolfson college, Oxford.

  Mr. Nicholls
  The research study by the centre for socio-legal studies at Wolfson college into aspects of policy and enforcement is not yet complete. A decision on its eventual publication is a matter for the centre.

  Mr. McAllion
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will publish in the Official Report the location, address and staff complement of each Health and Safety Executive office in the United Kingdom in each year since 1978.

  Mr. Nicholls
  The location, address and staff complement since 1978 for the Health and Safety Executive's headquarters, each area and for each research and laboratory services division site is as follows. It is not possible to show separately those staff located in sub-offices or outstationed. These staff are included in the appropriate area office total.
  427

  1 January in each year

  Location

  1978

  1979

  1980

  1981

  1982

  1983

  1984

  1985

  1986

  1987

  1988

  09

  104

  103

  106

  103

  97

  90

  94

  85

  83

  87

  87

  10

  185

  173

  176

  163

  148

  135

  127

  117

  108

  103

  97

  11

  169

  166

  174

  169

  146

  130

  129

  123

  118

  120

  109

  12

  109

  109

  110

  103

  98

  92

  91

  87

  82

  85

  85

  13

  83

  87

  87

  96

  82

  76

  72

  88

  82

  87

  81

  14

  101

  94

  89

  87

  79

  76

  79

  85

  82

  81

  75

  15

  168

  195

  202

  188

  167

  159

  152

  134

  131

  137

  122

  l6

  149

  144

  139

  134

  126

  120

  120

  101

  92

  95

  92

  17

  65

  69

  67

  68

  59

  57

  61

  66

  69

  70

  62

  18

  70

  69

  64

  70

  66

  64

  65

  74

  73

  71

  64

  19

  126

  116

  116

  116

  111

  105

  97

  94

  91

  93

  77

  20

  128

  152

  155

  151

  140

  138

  134

  114

  107

  106

  106

  21

  104

  78

  76

  74

  68

  62

  59

  73

  69

  70

  71

  Field total

  2,254

  2,271

  2,294

  2,226

  2,029

  1,917

  1,888

  1,852

  1,780

  1,806

  1,690

  Research and laboratory services

  576

  593

  575

  535

  544

  503

  489

  490

  477

  482

  442

  Posts in house

  4,170

  4,226

  4,218

  4,066

  3,839

  3,736

  3,718

  3,711

  3,639

  3,697

  3,501

  Mr. McAllion
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will publish in the Official Report for (a) Scotland and (b) the United Kingdom the number of prosecutions for alleged breaches of the Health and safety at Work etc. Act, and the number of custodial sentences imposed as a result of those prosecutions in each year since 1978.

  Mr. Nicholls
  (a) The table shows the available information for Scotland.

  Number of prosecutions: informations laid by Factory and Agricultural Inspectors

  Year

  Number

  1981

  183

  1982

  243

  1983

  259

  1984

  218

  1985

  298

  1986–871

  251

  1 Provisional data for the 12 month period April 1986 to March 1987.

  (b) The table shows the available information for Great Britain.

  Number of prosecutions: informations laid

  Year

  2 3

  4

  5

  1978

  —

  —

  2,603

  1979

  —

  2,427

  —

  1980

  —

  2,624

  —

  1981

  —

  1,892

  —

  1982

  —

  2,342

  —

  1983

  2,238

  2,230

  —

  1984

  2,207

  2,196

  —

  1985

  2,313

  2,196

  —

  1986–87

  2,175

  2,140

  —

  2 Data include prosecutions taken by Factory and Agricultural Inspectorate, Explosives Inspectorate, Her Majesty's Mines and Quarries Inspectorate, Railway Inspectorate and the Petroleum Engineering Division of the Department of Energy, but exclude the Pollution Inspectorate (formerly the Industrial Air Pollution Inspectorate).

  3 Figures in both tables exclude the results of prosecutions taken by Local Authorities. The latest information for Local authorities (LAs) relates to 1985, for which we know of about 250 informations laid under the Health and Safety at Work Act, and 200 under other associated legislation in Great Britain as a whole.

  4 Factory and Agricultural Inspectorate only.

  5 Factory Inspectorate only.

  428
  (c) In 1985, one person was given a suspended prison sentence of one month, and in 1987 one person was given two suspended prison sentences of nine months (to run consecutively). These sentences related to offences under the Health and Safety at Work etc Act and associated legislation. None of them occurred in Scotland.

  Mr. McAllion
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will publish in the Official Report the average fine handed out for offences under the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act for (a) Scotland and (b) the United Kingdom in each year since 1978.

  Mr. Nicholls
  The average fine for prosecutions taken by the Health and Safety Executive's Factory and Agricultural Inspectorate for breach of health and safety laws in(a) Scotland and (b) Great Britain since 1978 is as follows:

  Year

  Average fine (£)

  (a) Scotland

  (b) Great Britain

  1978

  +

  1134

  1979

  +

  184

  1980

  +

  180

  1981

  154

  189

  1982

  168

  233

  1983

  182

  252

  1984

  301

  304

  1985

  316

  426

  21986–87

  354

  427

  Notes:

  + Not Available.

  1 Factory Inspectorate only.

  2 Provisional.

  Figures for Northern Ireland are a matter for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland.

  Caravan and Holiday Parks
  Mr. Nicholas Bennett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will make a statement on the development of the caravan and holiday park industry.

  Mr. Lee
  The caravan and holiday park industry makes a major contribution to tourism in this country. It is estimated to produce an annual turnover in excess of £800 million and to provide over 200,000 jobs. I welcome the industry's efforts to improve its training and to provide higher standards by introducing codes of practice, and a
  429
  grading scheme, produced by the British Holiday and Home Parks Association and the National Caravan Council in conjunction with the English Tourist Board. I was also pleased to learn of the industry's plans to invest £3 million in a national campaign to raise the profile of caravan holidays.

  Equal Opportunities
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what rights against sex discrimination a woman will have under the Government's proposed new training scheme.

  Mr. Nicholls
  It is unlawful under section 14 of the Sex Discrimination Act 1975 for the Manpower Services Commission to discriminate against a woman in the provision of training for employment. Furthermore, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State will be designating the new adult training programme under section 14(2)(d) of the Act. This will render unlawful discrimination by persons providing training on behalf of the Manpower Services Commission.

  Ms. Mowlam
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment when he expects to announce the findings of the consultative document on the restrictions on the employment of young people and the removal of sex discrimination in legislation.

  Mr. Nicholls
  I am at present considering with my colleagues the responses we have received to the consultative document. I hope to bring forward appropriate legislation in due course.

  Enterprise Allowance Scheme
  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will make a further statement on the progress of the enterprise allowance scheme.

  Mr. Cope
  Since the enterprise allowance scheme began in 1982, over 320,000 unemployed people have been helped to start their own business: 102,500 places are available this year, although this figure is likely to be exceeded; 110,000 places will be available next year.

  School Leavers
  Mr. Hardy
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what proportion of school leavers within the metropolitan borough of Rotherham secured full-time employment apart from Government schemes in 1987.

  Mr. Nicholls
  Records maintained by the metropolitan borough of Rotherham careers service show that at 10 March 1988, 545 (18.6 per cent.) of the 16-year-old pupils who left school in Rotherham in 1987 were in employment outside YTS. Separate figures for full and part-time employment are not available.

  Enterprise in Higher Education Initiative
  Mr. Carrington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will make a statement on the progress of the Training Commission's enterprise in higher education initiative.

  Mr. Nicholls
  Since the launch of the initiative on 9 December 1987 there has been a most pleasing level of 430
  institutional interest Four one-day workshops were held for institutions in early February. The total attendance was in excess of 300 with 143 institutions represented. Outline bids for first round funding have been received from 85 institutions. Each institution will be notified shortly about the outcome of its bid.

  Local Employer Networks
  Mr. Colvin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many local employer networks have been established; and what has been the cost to his Department.

  Mr. Nicholls
  Eighty Seven employer networks had been contracted by 18 March with a further five applications under consideration.

  Some £3·7 million has been allocated to the project, which is a collaborative venture between the CBI, Association of British Chambers of Commerce and the Manpower Services Commission.

  Channel Tunnel
  Mr. Lewis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment when representatives of the Health and Safety Executive last visited the Channel tunnel construction site to assess safety levels.

  Mr. Nicholls
  Inspectors of the Health and Safety Executive last visited the Channel tunnel construction site at Shakespeare cliff, Dover, on 24 March 1988, and a further visit is planned for today.

  Schools-Employers (Compacts)
  Mr. Moss
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what plans he has to introduce compacts between schools and employers; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. John Browne
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what resources he is making available to schools and local employers who wish to form a compact; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Anthony Coombs
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what steps he is taking to promote the development of compacts between schools and employers in inner city areas; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Fowler
  I refer my hon. Friends to the reply I gave earlier to my hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, North-East (Mrs. Hicks).

  Unemployment
  Mr. Forth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment when he will next be meeting his EEC counterparts to discuss unemployment throughout Europe; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Cope
  I met European Commission colleagues on 14–15 March at an informal meeting of Labour Ministers. The meeting discussed a number of EC developments touching on unemployment, notably the future role of the European social fund and employment in the steel industry. I took the opportunity to draw attention to the continuing high level of unemployment across Europe. The next formal meeting will be on 9 June. I will, in the usual way, make a statement following that meeting.

  Job Clubs
  Mr. Hayward
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will make a further statement on the development of job clubs.

  Mr. Lee
  Since my reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton, West (Mr. Sackville), on 15 December 1987, at column 476, a further 51 job clubs have opened.

  There are now 1,184 job clubs in operation. Some changes in eligibility rules were made early in March 1988 to reinforce help available to unemployed people at a disadvantage in the labour market. In particular, entry to job clubs was made easier for (i) people with disabilities, (ii) ex-offenders, (iii) clients of Manpower Services Commission's adult programmes, if they leave the programme unplaced.

  In addition, the employment service is developing the job club programme in inner cities so as better to meet special needs.

  Mr. Fallon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many people are attending job clubs in the northern region.

  Mr. Lee
  At 26 February, 1,682 people were attending job clubs in the northern region.

  Vacancies (East Anglia)
  Mr. Patrick Thompson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will make a statement on the number of vacancies registered at jobcentres in East Anglia.

  Mr. Lee
  On 5 February 1988, the number of unfilled vacancies, excluding vacancies on the community programme, at jobcentres in the East Anglia region was 7,764. This represents an increase of 29·6 per cent. since February 1987.

  Disabled People
  Mr. Ashley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment whether, in reviewing employment assistance for disabled people, his Department will be consulting interested groups.

  Mr. Lee
  This is an internal review which will take account of information and advice available already, including the study of the Tomlinson principles recently completed by the National Advisory Council on Employment of Disabled People. I would expect that conclusions that emerge from the review will be subject to the normal processes of consultation.

  Enterprise Agencies
  Mr. Jacques Arnold
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will make a further statement on the development of enterprise agencies.

  Mr. Cope
  Local enterprise agencies are independent private sector-led organisations and their future development must rest primarily with their boards and private sector sponsors. Through the local enterprise agency grant scheme, this Department is encouraging the development in England of a network of viable LEAs capable after five years (the scheme's duration) of surviving without specific Government funding. I set out in a reply to my hon. Friend 432
  the Member for Sherwood (Mr. Stewart) Official Report, 8 March, at column 117, certain modifications which have been made recently to increase the scheme's effectiveness in achieving its original objectives.

  Small Businesses
  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what recent evidence he has about the impact on levels of employment in small businesses of the various obligations discussed in "Building Businesses … not Barriers".

  Mr. Cope
  Removal of burdens on business is part of the Government's overall policy to encourage enterprise. The report "Encouraging Enterprise", presented to Parliament in May 1987 sets out progress made since the publication of "Building Businesses … not Barriers". It is not possible to quantify the impact of this single factor on employment in small business, but the overall success of Government policy is clear with the continuing growth in the number of small businesses and the self-employed.

  Maternity Leave
  Ms. Richardson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment whether he has any plans to introduce legislation concerning the rights of women to maternity leave, in the light of the Court of Appeal decision on Ms. Dowuona v. John Lewis.

  Mr. Nicholls
  I have no such plans.

  Mines and Quarries Inspectors
  Mr. Patchett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what has been the change in the number of Her Majesty's mines and quarries inspectors in the Health and Safety Executive since 1979.

  Mr. Nicholls
  The number of mines and quarries inspectors has fallen from 116 in 1979 to 76 on 1 March 1988. This closely reflects the changes that have taken place, primarily in the mining industry, in size and structure over the same period.

  "Training for Employment"
  Mr. Amess
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many representations he has received on the proposals contained in the White Paper "Training for Employment"; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Nicholls
  We have received some 150 representations on the proposals contained in the White Paper "Training for Employment". The White Paper sets out the Goverment's plans for securing continuing reductions in unemployment and for sustaining jobs growth. It calls on employers, individuals and trade unions to play their part, in particular to equip longer-term unemployed people for the jobs which the economy is generating. We believe that the soundness of the approach set out in the White Paper is widely recognised.

  Training Programme (Allowances)
  Mr. Favell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he has any plans to meet the general secretary of the Trades Union Congress to discuss the training allowance payable to trainees on the new unified training programme; and if he will make a statement.
  433
  Mr. Nicholls
  No. As announced in the recent White Paper "Training for Employment", the training allowances to he paid to trainees on the new employment training programme will be those unanimously recommended by the Manpower Services Commission, which includes three commissioners nominated by the Trades Union Congress.

  Small Firms Service
  Mr. Janman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many inquiries were handled by the Small Firms Service in 1987; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Cope
  During the calendar year 1987, the small firms service in England dealt with 259,638 inquiries.

  Holiday Accommodation
  Mr. Butterfill
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what is being done to ensure that self-catering holiday accommodation is maintained at a high standard.

  Mr. Lee
  The English Tourist Board offered a total of nearly £1 million in the 1986–87 financial year towards the costs of developing and upgrading self-catering accommodation. At the beginning of 1988, the board introduced the holiday homes approval scheme. Accommodation approved under this voluntary scheme will have met minimum standards of cleanliness and quality.

  Contracts (Small Firms)
  Mr. Watts
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many representations he has received, following the publication of "Tendering for Government Contracts," from small firms, and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Cope
  I refer my hon. Friend to my reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Norfolk, North-West (Mr. Bellingham) on Tuesday 2 February 1988,Official Report, column 558.

  Vacancies (South-West)
  Mr. Hannam
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will make a statement on the number of job vacancies registered at jobcentres in the south-west.

  Mr. Lee
  On 5 February 1988, the number of unfilled vacancies, excluding vacancies on the community programme, at jobcentres in the south-west region was 16,758. This represents an increase of 8·7 per cent. since February 1987.

  Catering Industry
  Dr. Twinn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what he is doing to promote the image of the catering industry among tourists.

  Mr. Lee
  We are assisting the industry to maintain and improve standards of professionalism and service through the tourism training initiative, the work of the Manpower Services Commission and the work of the statutory training and tourist bodies.

  Agriculture Industry
  Mr. Nigel Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what additional funding was made available for the Health and Safety Executive's recent campaign to reduce the number of accidents in the agriculture industry.

  Mr. Nicholls
  The costs of this campaign were met from within the overall provision made to the Health and Safety Commission and Executive for 1987–88, which was increased by £1 million during the year.

  American Visitors
  Mr. Sackville
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many American visitors came to Britain in 1987; and how much they spent.

  Mr. Lee
  The information requested is not yet available for the whole of 1987. However, in the 12 months to September 1987, residents of the United States of America made 2,705,000 visits to the United Kingdom and spent £1,431 million. Comparable figures for 1986 are 2,342,000 and £1,253 million for visits and spending respectively.

  Trade Unions (Postal Ballots)
  Mr. Riddick
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what representations he has received concerning the proposals, embodied in the Employment Bill, to compel trade unions to hold the elections of their principal executive officers by secret postal ballot: and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Nicholls
  In addition to comments on the proposal contained in chapter 5 of the Green Paper "Trade Unions and Their Members", my Department continues to receive letters and requests for meetings about the Employment Bill provision to require fully postal voting for the election of all general secretaries, presidents and members of union principal executive committees.

  Restart Programme
  Mr. Mans
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many long-term unemployed have been offered help to date under the restart programme.

  Mr. Lee
  Since 1 July 1986, some 3·2 million interviews have taken place under the restart programme, of which just under 90 per cent. have resulted in an offer of positive help being made.

  Nuclear Installations Inspectors
  Mr. Dunnachie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what plans he has to increase the numbers of Her Majesty's nuclear installations inspectors.

  Mr. Nicholls
  The staffing of the nuclear installations inspectorate is a matter for the Health and Safety Commission and Executive. Their current plans provide for a total of 121 nuclear installations inspectors in 1988–89. A decision has yet to be taken on further increases.

  Industrial Tourism
  Mr. Beaumont-Dark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what he is doing to stimulate industrial tourism.
  435
  Mr. Lee
  I shall continue to take every opportunity to promote the potential benefits to be gained by companies exploiting their potential as tourist attractions. The CBI is demonstrating support by organising a conference on this subject on 15 September this year at which I shall be speaking. In addition, the English tourist board is to work with the CBI to produce a booklet designed to provide encouragement, advice and information to companies considering entering this field.

  Accidents at Work
  Mr. McAllion
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will publish in the Official Report (a) the number of people killed and (b) the number of people injured in accidents at work (i) in Scotland and (ii) in the United Kingdom, in each year since 1978.

  Mr. Nicholls
  The available information for accidents reported to Her Majesty's Factory and Agricultural Inspectorates and to the local authorities in Scotland and Great Britain as a whole is as follows.

  Nunbers of reported occupational injuries to employees in Scotland

  Year

  1Death

  2Major injury

  3Abscence from work of over three days

  19786

  59

  —

  25,999

  19796

  72

  —

  24,157

  19806

  49

  —

  21,732

  1981

  57

  1,209

  38,080

  1982

  57

  1,228

  34,181

  1983

  55

  1,160

  —

  1984

  47

  1,154

  —

  1985

  37

  1,159

  —

  1986–87 (p)4

  39

  51,793

  13,550

  Numbers of reported occupational injuries to employees in Great Britain

  19787

  433

  —

  269,123

  19797

  433

  —

  250,465

  19807

  411

  —

  210.290

  1981

  355

  11,079

  359,251

  1982

  368

  11,084

  327,806

  1983

  366

  11,270

  —

  1984

  361

  11,853

  —

  1985

  321

  12,112

  —

  1986–87 (p)4

  314

  518,567

  141,225

  —not available.

  p provisional.

  1 Includes fatal injuries to members of the public arising from work activity, only for those fatal injuries reported to Local Authorities in 1981–1985.

  2 As defined in the Notification of Accidents and Dangerous Occurrences Regulations, 1980. (NADOR).

  3 For 1981–82, injuries resulting in claims for industrial injury benefit. From 1983 to 1985 figures are not available as Industrial Injury Benefit ceased in 1983.

  From April 1986 injuries reported under the Reporting of Injuries, Diseases and Dangerous Occurrences Regulations 1985 (RIDDOR).

  These figures are not comparable with previous figures.

  4 Year commencing 1 April 1986 when RIDDOR came into force.

  5 The definition of major injury for 1986–87 is given in the RIDDO Regulations and is wider that that specified under NADOR.

  6 For Scotland, injuries in 1978–80 are those reported to Factory Inspectorate only.

  7 For Great Britain, injuries reported in 1978–80 are those to Factory and Agricultural Inspectorate only.

  Figures for Northern Ireland are a matter for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland.

  Industrial Diseases
  Mr. McAllion
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will publish in the Official Report the number of people who have died from industrial diseases in (a) Scotland and (b) the United Kingdom in each year since 1978.

  Mr. Nicholls
  The available statistics are as shown. The numbers have been obtained by combining figures for death benefit awards under the industrial injuries and pneumoconiosis, byssinosis and miscellaneous diseases benefit schemes with figures of certifications that death was due to pneumoconiosis made under the workers' compensation scheme.

  Deaths in the United Kingdom which can be attributed to recognised industrial diseases

  Year

  Number

  1978

  888

  1979

  931

  1980

  920

  1981

  905

  1982

  897

  1983

  913

  1984

  806

  1985

  1,033

  1986

  930

  I regret that separate figures for Scotland are not available.

  Lost Working Days
  Mr. McAllion
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will publish in the Official Report the number of working days lost in (a) Scotland and (b) the United Kingdom as a result of (i) accidents and illness at work and (ii) strike action in each year since 1978.

  Mr. Nicholls
  Table 1 shows the available information for the estimated number of days of certified incapacity resulting from compensated industrial accidents and prescribed diseases in Scotland and in Great Britain. This information is available only up to April 1983 when industrial injury benefit was effectively abolished.

  Table 1

  Year (June to May)

  Number of Days (millions)

  Scotland

  Great Britain

  1977–78

  1·8

  15·6

  1978–79

  1·7

  15·5

  1979–80

  1·5

  13·0

  1980–81

  1·3

  10·9

  1981–82

  1·2

  10·8

  11982–83

  1·0

  9·5

  1 Year ending 31 March 1983

  Table 2 shows the number of working days lost due to industrial disputes in Scotland and Great Britain.

  Table 2

  Number of Days (thousands)

  Year

  Scotland

  Great Britain

  1978

  886

  9,141

  1979

  3,268

  28,744

  1980

  1,447

  11,915

  1981

  599

  4,197

  1982

  634

  5,216

  437

  Number of Days (thousands)

  Year

  Scotland

  Great Britain

  1983

  308

  3,675

  1984

  2,333

  27,083

  1985

  681

  6,362

  1986

  312

  1,890

  Notes:

  1 The statistics relate to stoppages of work due to industrial disputes connected with terms and conditions of employment. Stoppages involving fewer than ten workers or lasting less than one day are excluded unless the total number of working days lost in the dispute is greater than 100.

  2 The information is regularly published in the Department of Employment Gazette.

  Figures for Northern Ireland are a matter for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland.

  Small Businesses (Health and Safety)
  Mr. McAllion
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he has any plans to introduce health and safety advice centres to assist knowledge of and resource capacity to tackle health and safety at work problems among small businesses; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Nicholls
  I have no such plans. Area offices of the Health and Safety Executive and local authorities with responsibilities for health and safety enforcement already offer help and advice to small businesses throughout the country.

  Consultancy Contracts
  Mr. Tim Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what was the total amount spent by his Department in 1987 on management and computer consultancy contracts, excluding hardware and software purchases.

  Mr. Lee
  Payments made by the Department of Employment Group, excluding the Manpower Services Commission, in 1987 on management and computer consultancy amounted to £904,000.

  Mr. Tim Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what was the total amount spent by the Manpower Services Commission in 1987 on management and computer consultancy contracts, excluding hardware and software purchases.

  Mr. Lee
  The Manpower Services Commission spent a total of £1·6 million during the calendar year 1987 on management and computer consultancy contracts, excluding hardware and software purchases.

  Health and Safety Executive (Dundee)
  Mr. McAllion
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will make a statement on his Department's decision to close the Health and Safety Executive office in Dundee as from 1 April.

  Mr. Nicholls
  The Health and Safety Commission and Executive are responsible for the deployment of their staff. Their decision to close the Dundee office was taken because it no longer presents a viable base for the efficient organisation of inspection. The planned redeployment of staff will not reduce the present service in Dundee or the rest of HSE's Scotland east area.

  Tourism (China)
  Mr. Fisher
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many British tourists have visited China in each of the last five years.

  Mr. Lee
  Estimates of the number of visits to China by United Kingdom residents in the five years 1982 to 1986 are as follows.

  Visits

  1982

  5,200

  1983

  8,900

  1984

  10,400

  1985

  18,500

  1986

  19,300

NORTHERN IRELAND

  Maghaberry Prison
  Mr. A. Cecil Walker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will give a detailed breakdown of operating costs for Maghaberry prison for the financial year 1986–87.

  Mr. Stanley
  The information requested is as follows:

  £

  Security and control

  3,246,405

  Inmate care

  715,042

  Inmate occupation

  231,155

  Accommodation services (this includes supplies and services)

  1,488,711

  Other costs (this includes administration, staff amenities and training)

  1,341,745

  Total

  7,023,058

  British Soldiers (Murders)
  Mr. William Ross
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will call for a report from the Chief Constable of the Royal Ulster Constabulary as to how many persons identified from pictures of the attack on two members of her Majesty's forces on Saturday 19 March have served prison sentences; and for what offences.

  Mr. Stanley
  No. The Chief Constable is currently carrying out a full and thorough investigation into these barbaric murders. It would not be appropriate for me to comment at this stage of the inquiries.

  Terrorist Killings
  Mr. William Ross
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will list the British subjects murdered by terrorists when they were(a) living in and (b) visiting the Irish Republic since 1 January 1969, and in how many of those cases he has information on (i) whether persons were charged and brought before the courts in the Irish Republic and (ii) how many of those cases resulted in a guilty verdict and prison sentence.

  Mr. Stanley
  [holding answer 21 March 1988]: This information in respect of British subjects normally resident in Northern Ireland is not readily available and could be provided only at disproportionate cost. This information in respect of other British subjects is a matter for my right hon. and learned Friend the Foreign and Commonwealth Secretary.
  439
  Mr. William Ross
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what information he has as to on how many occasions during the last 15 years, when persons were murdered by terrorists in Northern Ireland and the killers were known to have left the scene of the murder and crossed the land frontier into the Irish Republic, an assistant commissioner of the Garda was put in charge of inquiries made in the Irish Republic as to the identity of the murderers.

  Mr. Stanley
  [holding answer 21 March 1988]: I understand that in all murders with a cross-border dimension the Garda carry out their own investigations. I have no information regarding the rank of the Garda officer in charge of each investigation.

  Mr. William Ross
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will list by name, date and place the persons killed by terrorists since 1969 where the victims were in Northern Ireland and the killers were in the Irish Republic when the incident leading to each death took place; whether in each case any persons were(a) charged, (b) brought before the courts, (c) sentenced to a term of imprisonment and (d) acquitted or otherwise released; and if he will also indicate whether the method used to commit the crime was shooting, remote-controlled explosion, radio-detonated bomb, or other method.

  Mr. Stanley
  [holding answer 21 March 1988]: The information requested could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  However, since the beginning of 1987, the only person killed in Northern Ireland by a terrorist operating in the Republic of Ireland was lance Corporal Thomas Hewitt who was murdered by the Provisional IRA on 19 July whilst on patrol in Belleek, Co Fermanagh. The gunman carried out the murder from a firing point within the Republic of Ireland. On 31 July 1987 Michael Joseph Heron was charged in the Republic of Ireland with possession of a firearm with intent in relation to this murder. He was subsequently convicted at Dublin special criminal court in February 1988 and sentenced to three years' imprisonment.

  Lord Justice Gibson
  Mr. William Ross
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what information he has as to the rank of the Garda officer who was appointed to take charge of inquiries into the murder of Lord Justice Gibson.

  Mr. Stanley
  [holding answer 21 March 1988]: None.

SOCIAL SERVICES

  Mental Hospitals (Staff)
  Mr. Sheerman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services what is the proportion of qualified to unqualified staff in mental hospitals at present and in each of the last 10 years.

  Mr. Newton
  Information about staff employed in mental hospitals, other than nursing staff, is not collected centrally. The information requested for nursing staff employed at September 1981 to September 1986 is shown in the table. Comparable information is not available prior to 1981.
  440

  Nursing and midwifery staff in mentall illness area1 of work England at 30 September

  Whole-time equivalents2

  Year

  Total

  Qualified staff

  Unqualified staff3

  Ratio of qualified to unqualified staff4

  1981

  54,480

  29,200

  25,270

  1·16:1

  1982

  56,560

  30,500

  26,060

  1·17:1

  1983

  57,160

  31,230

  25,940

  1·20:1

  1984

  57,690

  32,190

  25,500

  1·26:1

  1985

  58,470

  33,140

  25,330

  1·31:1

  1986

  59,480

  33,760

  25,720

  1·31:1

  Source: DHSS annual census of NHS non-medical manpower.

  1 Includes staff who work in psychiatric wards of non-psychiatric hospitals.

  2 Figures have been independently rounded to the nearest ten (10) whole time equivalents.

  3 Including learners.

  4 Ratios calculated on unrounded figures.

  Health Services (Staff)
  Mr. David Shaw
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services if he has any information as to the total number of managerial and administrative staff employed in patient care in the public and private health services in the United States of America; and what is the total number of administrative and clerical staff employed in patient care in the United Kingdom Health Service.

  Mr. Newton
  I regret that information on the United States of America is not available.

  The administrative and clerical staff employed in patient care, in England, are shown in the table. (30 September 1986 is latest available to this level of detail). Information for other parts of the United Kingdom are a matter for the respective Secretaries of State.

  Clinically related administrative and clerical staff1 in England at 30 September 1986—Whole time equivalents2— 35,900

  Source: DHSS annual census of non NHS medical manpower.

  1Includes staff employed in the following areas of work : Medical Records, Voluntary Help, Medical Secretaries, Patient Services, Clinical Research Support, Health Education, Ward Clerks, Blood Transfusion Services, Mass Radiography, Ambulance Support, Family Planning, Mental Handicap and Mental Illness Care, Professions Allied to Medicine (PAMs) support and Occupational Health.

  2Figure is rounded to nearest one hundred (100) whole time equivalents.

  Child Benefit
  Mr. Haynes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services if any decision has yet been taken about the future uprating of child benefit; and if he will make a statement.

  Dr. Reid
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services if any decision has yet been taken about the future uprating of child benefit; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Scott
  The level of child benefit is reviewed each year as part of the annual review of benefits.

  Severely Disabled People
  Mr. Frank Cook
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services by what criteria applications for assistance from the special fund to help the severely disabled are to be judged; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Scott
  I hope to make an announcement shortly.

  Griffiths Report
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services what consideration he is giving to implementing the recommendations made in the Griffiths report; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Newton
  We are considering Sir Roy Griffiths' recommendations, taking account of the report of the committee chaired by Lady Wagner on residential care, and of reactions to both reports. The Government will bring forward their own proposals in due course.

  Retirement Pensions
  Mr. Stern
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services how many married women are in receipt of category B retirement pensions; and what is the average weekly amount.

  Mr. Scott
  Some 1·9 million married women were receiving category B retirement pension in Great Britain

  Region

  Year

  Total

  1979

  1980

  1981

  1982

  1983

  1984

  1985

  1986

  Northern

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  69

  69

  Yorkshire

  —

  —

  130

  —

  —

  —

  492

  —

  622

  Trent

  79

  73

  106

  —

  42

  429

  —

  133

  862

  East Anglian

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  120

  —

  —

  120

  North West Thames

  —

  —

  18

  20

  85

  67

  134

  713

  1,037

  North East Thames

  —

  —

  —

  —

  154

  —

  —

  41

  195

  South East Thames

  —

  —

  —

  48

  —

  —

  —

  —

  48

  South West Thames

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  216

  —

  —

  216

  Wessex

  —

  —

  —

  —

  77

  80

  25

  —

  182

  Oxford

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  30

  24

  —

  54

  South Western

  —

  —

  —

  —

  133

  —

  259

  24

  416

  West Midlands

  84

  —

  —

  —

  173

  340

  301

  —

  898

  Mersey

  —

  34

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  34

  Total

  4,753

  Mentally-ill People
  Mr. Goodlad
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services how many patients with a primary diagnosis of schizophrenia psychosis have been discharged from mental hospitals in each health region in England and Wales in each of the last 10 years.

  Discharges of persons from NHS mental illness hospitals and units in England with a primary diagnosis of Schizophrenic psychoses, 1980–86.

  Region

  Numbers

  1980

  1981

  1982

  1983

  1984

  1985

  1986

  England

  25,240

  25,992

  24,594

  25,336

  25,934

  26,225

  26,077

  Northern

  1,844

  1,802

  1,750

  1,808

  1,858

  1,799

  1,767

  Yorkshire

  2,214

  2,258

  2,005

  2,216

  2,294

  2,199

  2,282

  Trent

  2,191

  2,253

  2,183

  2,202

  2,156

  2,112

  2,064

  East Anglia

  648

  846

  771

  753

  772

  765

  791

  North West Thames

  2,287

  2,490

  2,281

  2,414

  2,373

  2,397

  2,469

  North East Thames

  2,378

  2,588

  2,472

  2,526

  2,562

  2,596

  2,663

  South East Thames

  1,949

  2,054

  1,842

  1,977

  1,983

  2,052

  1,927

  South West Thames

  1,833

  1,714

  1,651

  1,649

  1,713

  1,685

  1,615

  Wessex

  1,418

  1,499

  1,437

  1,393

  1,452

  1,443

  1,551

  Oxford

  655

  643

  643

  670

  707

  781

  845

  South Western

  1,324

  1,288

  1,234

  1,310

  1,280

  1,304

  1,264

  West Midlands

  2,664

  2,514

  2,520

  2,534

  2,485

  2,458

  2,478

  Mersey

  1,217

  1,279

  1,266

  1,325

  1,377

  1,488

  1,412

  442
  at 30 September 1987. 98 per cent. were entitled to the full basic pension of £23–75; about one half received more than a basic pension by way of earnings-related pension or other increases.

  Mental Hospitals
  Mr. Goodlad
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services how many mental hospital beds have been closed in each health region in England and Wales in each of the last 10 years.

  Mrs. Currie
  The table shows the number of beds provided by mental handicap and mental illness hospitals in England that were approved for closure between 1979 and December 1986 (the latest date for which figures are available) by region and year. Information on hospitals in Wales is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales.

  Mrs. Currie
  The table shows the numbers of discharges from mental illness hospitals and units in England for the years 1980–86. Data for earlier years could be obtained only at disproportionate cost. It should be noted that some patients are admitted for a hospital stay more than once during the year. The information for Wales is the responsibility of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales.
  443

  Region

  Numbers

  1980

  1981

  1982

  1983

  1984

  1985

  1986

  North Western

  2,424

  2,564

  2,348

  2,331

  2,683

  2,875

  2,621

  Special Health Authority

  194

  200

  191

  228

  239

  271

  328

  Government Data Network
  Ms. Gordon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services if Electronic Data Service has advised his Department on any matters concerning the Government data network.

  Mr. Portillo
  Electronic Data Systems Ltd (EDS) was a member of one of the consortia originally interested in the Government data network project. During 1986 they had discussions with the DHSS and other Government Departments. It withdrew itself from consideration in January 1987.

  Community Psychiatric Nurses
  Mr. Goodlad
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services how many community psychiatric nurses there were in each health region in England and Wales in 1979; how many there are at present; and how many he estimates there will be in 1991.

  Mr. Newton
  Information in the exact form requested is not collected centrally. The number of nursing staff employed in the community psychiatric service in each region in England at September 1981 and September 1986 is shown in the table. Comparable information is not available for 1979.

  It is for indiviual health authorities to plan the future number of community psychiatic nursing staff they require in the light of their needs and the resources which can be devoted to meet those needs.

  The information for Wales is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales.

  NHS Community Psychiatric Nursing Staff (Mental Illness) at 30

  September: whole time equivalents: England

  Region

  1981

  1986

  Percentage change 1981–86

  Northern

  60

  158

  163

  Yorkshire

  68

  199

  194

  Trent

  100

  260

  160

  East Anglian

  50

  106

  112

  NW Thames

  69

  168

  143

  NE Thames

  97

  137

  41

  SE Thames

  36

  208

  478

  SW Thames

  134

  209

  56

  Wessex

  83

  176

  112

  Oxford

  71

  122

  72

  South Western

  95

  147

  55

  West Midlands

  53

  255

  384

  Mersey

  90

  156

  73

  North Western

  78

  228

  194

  London Post Graduate SHA

  1

  2

  100

  England

  1,083

  2,532

  134

  Source: DHSS annual census of NHS non-medical manpower.

  Note: All figures independently rounded to the nearest whole-time equivalent.

  Social Security Appeals
  Mr. Ronnie Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services what representations he has received on the case for guidance and direction to be given to preserve a separation of function and interest between social security appeal tribunals and departmental officers presenting cases before them in the last three years.

  Mr. Portillo
  In 1986 a central management support team examined the procedures for handling appeals in DHSS offices. A copy of the final report has been placed in the Library. The report included a recommendation that adjudication officers needed to be made more aware of the exact function of the presenting officer at an appeal and that the recommendation should be brought to the attention of the training branches responsible for appeals courses. This recommendation has already been implemented.

  Moreover the adjudication officers' guide, Vol. 1 paras. 05289 et seq. also gives guidance as to the conduct of the adjudication officer when presenting an appeal. The adjudication officers' guide will be published on 30 March and copies will be placed in the Library.

  Mr. Ronnie Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services on how many occasions in the last three years(a) internal disciplinary action or (b) prosecutions have been taken relating to cases where social security appeals have been compromised by demonstrated collusion between departmental officers presenting cases and the appeal tribunals.

  Mr. Portillo
  I am not aware of any such incidents, but if the hon. Member has a specific case in mind I will have the matter investigated.

  Mental Patients
  Mr. Goodlad
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services how many new mental hospital beds have been opened in each health authority in England and Wales in each of the last 10 years.

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

  Alcohol and Art (Exhibition)
  Mr. Carrington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services if his Department has considered an application for an exhibition relating to alcohol and art to be displayed in the Upper Waiting Hall.

  Mrs. Currie
  I understand that, under procedures agreed by the Services Committee arrangements have been made with the authorities of the House for the exhibition to be held in the Upper Waiting Hall from 6 to 10 June.

  Circulars
  Mr. Michael Morris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services how many circulars have been issued by the Health Service Management Board in the last 12 months; and on what topics.

  Mrs. Currie
  The Department issued 63 health circulars and health notices on issues concerning hospital and community health services to health authorities in the period from 1 March 1987 to 1 March 1988. Other guidance and information was issued by letter and through bulletins. Following is a list of the circulars and notices:

  Health Circulars Sent to Health Authorities

  HC(87)7

  Resource Assumptions and Planning Guidelines

  HC(87)8

  Services for drug misusers — curbing the spread of AIDS and HIV infection

  HC(87)9

  Finance—NHS Internal Audit

  HC(87)10

  Drug Misuse and AIDS

  HC(87)11

  Male Midwives

  HC(87)12

  Mental Health Act 1983

  HC(87)13

  Charging for the supply of information about patients engaged in legal proceedings

  HC(87)14

  Data Protection Act 1984: Modified Access to Personal Health Information

  HC(87)15

  Data Protection Act 1984: Social Work Orders: Individuals' Right of Access

  HC(87)16

  Decisions of the Professional Conduct Committee of the GMC

  HC(87)17

  Revised cost allowance for Health Buildings

  HC(87)18

  Fluoridation of Water Supplies

  HC(87)19

  Misuse of Drugs Act 1971

  HC(87)21

  Pay and Conditions of Service: General Managers' Pay Rates

  HC(87)22

  Pay and Conditions of Service: Health Authority Senior Managers: arrangements for remuneration and conditions of service

  HC(87)23

  Primary Health Care Services

  HC(87)24

  Fire Precautions in NHS Premises

  HC(87)25

  Hospital Medical Staffing: Achieving a Balance

  HC(87)26

  Data Protection Act 1984: Modified Access to Personal Health Information

  HC(87)28

  Revised rates of pay for part time hospital chaplains

  HC(87)29

  Community Nursing Services and Primary Health Care Teams

  HC(87)30

  Hospital Laundry arrangements for used and infected linen

  HC(87)32

  Revised salaries for staff in ad hoc classes

  HC(87)33

  Demand for Elective Admission: Statistical Returns KHO6, KHO7, KHO7A

  HC(87)34

  Taxation of Staff Benefits and Allowances

  HC(87)35

  Voluntary Hospital Fire Brigade duties: payment of allowances

  HC(87)37

  Resource Distribution for 1988–89

  HC(88)1

  Cervical Cancer Screening

  HC(88)2

  Revises rates of pay for Psychological Technicians

  HC(88)3

  Radio frequency spectrum de-regulation

  HC(88)4

  NHS Treatment of overseas visitors

  HC(88)5

  Health Building Procedures: Works Consultants Commission: Revision to Fee Competition

  HC(88)6

  Arrangements for Locally Organised and Clinical Research in the NHS

  HC(88)7

  EEC Thresholds for Public Works Contracts

  HC(88)8

  NHS Tribunal

  HC(88)9

  Protection of Children: Disclosure of criminal back-ground of those with access to children

  HC(88)10

  Korner statistical returns

  HC(88)11

  Determination of Private Patients Charges

  Health Notices sent to Health Authorities

  HC(88)12

  Taxation of Staff Benefits and Allowances

  HN(87)6

  Social Security Payments for Hospital In-Patients

  HN(87)7

  Road Traffic Act Charges

  HN(87)8

  Capital Schemes shared with UGC-universities

  446

  Health Circulars Sent to Health Authorities

  HN(87)9

  Review of Artificial Limb and Appliance Centre

  HN(87)12

  Social Fund—Maternity Payment Integrated Leaflet

  HN(87)13

  NHS charges to overseas visitors

  HN(87)14

  Health Building Procedures: Terms and Conditions of Service of Works Consultants

  HN(87)15

  Handling Charges for Blood Derivates to Non NHS Hospitals

  HN(87)16

  Legionnaires' Disease: Engineering Guidance Note 4

  HN(87)17

  Legionnaires' Disease; Engineering Guidance Note 5

  HN(87)18

  Health Building Procedures

  HN(87)19

  Changes to the list of drugs available under the NHS

  HN(87)20

  Parliamentary and Health Services Commissioners Act 1987

  HN(87)21

  Changes in the Secretary of State's List for Dental Prescribing

  HN(87)22

  Decontamination of Health Care Equipment

  HN(87)23

  Circularised Communications Between the DHSS and Health Authorities

  HN(87)25

  Building Guidelines

  HN(87)26

  Promoting Better Health: White Paper on Primary Health Care

  HN(88)1

  Graduated Compression Hosiery

  HN(88)2

  Social Fund—Maternity Benefits

  HN(88)3

  Product Liability

  HN(88)4

  Charges for Drugs, oxygen concentrators and wigs and fabric supports

  Note: These lists exclude Circulars and Notices sent by the Department to Family Practitioner Committees and Local Authorities.

  Contaminated Foodstuffs (Imports)
  Mr. Barry Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services what further steps he intends to take to prevent the import of contaminated foodstuffs.

  Mrs. Currie
  No further steps are required. The powers available under the Imported Food Regulations 1984 relating to the importation of food for human consumption which is unfit, unsound or unwholesome together with those in the Food Act 1984 give the responsible authorities adequate control.

  Clinical Physicists
  Mr. Galbraith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services if he will give the reasons why clinical physicists are not included in the pay review body structure.

  Mr. Newton
  The claims of hospital physicists to be included in the pay review body structure were fully considered by Ministers in 1984 and 1985. It was decided that their pay should remain a matter for the Whitley council. That position is unchanged.

  Consultancy Contracts
  Mr. Tim Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services what was the total amount spent by his Department in 1987 on management and computer consultancy contracts, excluding hardware and software purchases.

  Mr. Moore
  £19·425 million.

  Pharmaceuticals (Adverse Reactions)
  Mr. Ashley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services, pursuant to the reply to the right hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South,Official Report, 26 February, column 364, if he will name the two pharmaceutical

  447
  companies being investigated for failing to report serious adverse reactions to their products; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Newton
  The investigations referred to in my reply of 26 February are into allegations of failure to report serious adverse reactions. It is not the policy of the Department to divulge names simply on the basis of allegations since this could cause unjustifiable damage to public confidence in a medicinal product and to the reputation of the licence holder. However in one case allegations naming the company were made publicly and the right hon. Member is already aware that we are investigating these. Inquiries are continuing in both cases.

  Disabled People
  Mr. Alfred Morris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services if a report is available on achievements under the United Nations world programme of action concerning disabled persons.

  Mr. Scott
  The Secretary-General of the United Nations has produced two reports: one on the implementation of the world programme of action concerning disabled persons and the United Nations decade of disabled persons (A/45/551) and another report on the evaluation of the implementation of the world programme of action concerning disabled persons during the first half of the United Nations decade of disabled persons (A/42/561). Copies of both of these reports have been deposited in the Library.

  Access Committee for England
  Mr. Alfred Morris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services if he will make a statement on the work of the Access Committee for England and its plans for its next period of office.

  Mr. Scott
  The Access Committee for England has performed much valuable work to promote the interests of disabled people. I expect this to continue in the light of the terms of reference being prepared by the Centre on Environment for the Handicapped, the body asked by the Government to run the Access Committee for England, and the prospective appointment of a new access director.

  Income Support
  Dr. Godman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services if he has made an estimate of the number of people who will be on income support in(a) Greenock, (b) Port Glasgow, (c) Strathclyde region and (d) Scotland as a whole in April.

  Mr. Portillo
  I regret that no reliable estimates are available.

  Family Credit
  Dr. Godman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services if he has made an estimate of the number of people who will be eligible for family credit in(a) Greenock, (b) Port Glasgow, (c) Strathclyde region and (d) Scotland as a whole in April.

  Mr. Portillo
  No. I regret that estimates are possible only on a national basis. However, if the proportion of the 448
  Great Britain total were to remain the same as in family income supplement, around 54,000 families in Scotland could be expected to receive family credit.

  Housing Benefit
  Dr. Godman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services if he has made an estimate of the number of people who will lose their entitlement to housing benefit in(a) Greenock, (b) Port Glasgow, (c) Strathclyde region and (d) Scotland as a whole from 11 April.

  Mr. Portillo
  I regret that information is not available in the form requested. The estimates made relate to Great Britain as a whole.

  Medical Laboratory Scientific Officers
  Mr. John
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services whether he will include medical laboratory scientific officers in the remit of the special bodies considering other salaries within the National Health Service.

  Mr. Newton
  The salaries of medical laboratory scientific officers are a matter for negotiation in the professional and technical staffs B Whitley council.

  Mr. John
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services how many principal medical laboratory scientific officers there are in England and Wales in the National Health Service; and whether he has any plans to alter that number.

  Mr. Newton
  The number of principal medical laboratory scientific officers in post in England on 30 September 1986 was 90 (whole-time equivalents). The number is dependent upon the requirements of individual health authorities; grading is determined according to criteria laid down in the agreements of the professional and technical staffs B Whitley council. Figures for Wales are a matter for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales.

  Mr. John
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services if he will list the grades of medical laboratory scientific officers; what is the maximum salary for each grade; and after what length of service such maximum is achieved.

  Mr. Newton
  The information in respect of qualified medical laboratory scientific officer grades is as follows:

  Grade

  Salary maximum £

  Annual incremental points

  Medical laboratory scientific officer

  9,435

  10

  Senior medical laboratory scientific officer

  11,577

  10

  Chief medical laboratory scientific officer

  12,663

  6

  Senior chief medical laboratory scientific officer

  14,963

  6

  Principal medical laboratory scientific officer

  17,201

  2

  Note: The salary scale point to which an officer may be appointed or promoted is determined by Whitley council agreement.

  Mr. John
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services what is the rate of turnover of medical laboratory scientific officers in the National Health Service for each of the last three years.
  449
  Mr. Newton
  This information is not available centrally. The number of qualified medical laboratory scientific officers in post in England for each of the last three years for which figures are available is as follows:

  NHS Medical Laboratory Scientific Officers (at 30 September each year)

  Year

  Staff in Post Whole Time Equivalents (England) Staff

  1984

  10,650

  1985

  10,930

  1986

  11,060

  Tooth Decay
  Mr. Thurnham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services if he has any proposals for making parents more aware of methods of fighting tooth decay in children; and if he will make fluoride tablets available free of charge on prescription for children where supplies are not fluoridated.

  Mrs. Currie
  The White Paper on primary care "Promoting Better Health" indicated that the Government proposed to launch further incentives to promote dental awareness and regular attendance at the dentist. Discussions are taking place with the dental profession and the Health Education Authority on the implementation of this proposal. Fluoride tablets are available on prescription free of charge to children under the age of 16.

  Skoal Bandits
  Mr. Ingram
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services if his Department was consulted before the commencement of the manufacture of Skoal Bandits in the United Kingdom; and if he will make a statement.

  Mrs. Currie
  The Department was consulted.

  Mr. Michael Brown
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services, pursuant to the answer of 26 February,Official Report, column 362, for what reason he proposes to use section 11 rather than section 13 of the Consumer Protection Act to ban Skoal Bandits; and if he will make a statement.

  Mrs. Currie
  The Government are proposing to ban the supply of certain oral tobacco products. Section 13 would not be appropriate as it allows only for action to be taken against named individuals or companies. Section 11 allows action to be taken against products.

  Low-income Families
  Mr. Squire
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services when he intends to publish the low-income families tables derived from the family expenditure survey for 1985.

  Mr. Portillo
  Following publication of the last edition in 1986, a technical review of the tables was announced and carried out by a team of the Department's officials with representation from the Central Statistical Office. I have now considered the report of the review and have placed copies in the Library. Copies are also available from the Department.
  450
  The report identifies a number of methodological weaknesses in the current tables, particularly in the use of the supplementary benefit scale rates as the yardstick for the measurement of low income. One problem is that there are two scale rates, so that two families each shown as having income at the scale rate level may have significantly different incomes. A second problem is that any increase in the value of the scale rate tends to increase the numbers appearing to be on "low income". The tables give no indication of whether those in the lower income groups were becoming better or worse off in real terms.

  In view of these and other weaknesses, and the imminent end of the supplementary benefit scheme itself, the report recommends the introduction of a number of new analyses based on income measures which would be broadly independent of the social security rules and rates, and which could therefore continue unaffected by the forthcoming benefit changes. The report includes detailed proposals for these new tables, which would include data on changes in real living standards and new analyses of the contribution of benefits to income in the lower ranges. Overall, the proposed new tables — which would be entitled "Households below average income: a statistical analysis" — would be significantly more extensive than the current series.

  The next edition of tables is clue to cover the years 1981, 1983 and 1985, and, to ensure a proper overlap between the existing and the new series, the report recommends that data on both bases should be published for all three years. In addition, to facilitate analysis of longer-term trends, the report proposes that a later edition should include data for a much earlier year—probably 1971.

  I welcome the report's proposals which would put the series on a more robust footing and extend the range of data published on a regular basis. Accordingly, I intend to publish within the next few weeks a final edition of the previous tables, covering 1981, 1983 and 1985, together with the first edition of the new tables for the same years.

  Mr. Squire
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services if he will publish a table showing the numbers of lower paid families, with and without children, whose marginal tax rates including benefit withdrawal will be(a) 90 to 100 per cent., (b) 80 to 90 per cent., (c) 70 to 80 per cent., (d) 60 to 70 per cent., (e) 50 to 60 per cent. and (f) 40 to 50 per cent. after the implementation of the Social Security Act 1986 and taking into account the Budget tax changes for 1988–89.

  Mr. Scott
  I refer my hon. Friend to my reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Kensington (Sir B. Rhys Williams) on 25 March 1988 at column 243–44.

  Yorkshire Regional Health Authority
  Mr. Fatchett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services whether he has received any proposals from Yorkshire regional health authority for the merger of existing district health authorities; and if he will make a statement.

  Mrs. Currie
  We have not received any such merger proposals from Yorkshire regional health authority. Proposals for the merger of Leeds Eastern and Leeds Western; Bradford and Airedale; and East Yorkshire and Hull health authorities were discussed by the authority at its meeting on 28 January 1988, but were rejected.

  Leeds Western Health Authority
  Mr. Fatchett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services when he expects to be in a position to announce the appointment of a new chairman for Leeds western health authority; and if he will make a statement.

  Mrs. Currie
  In due course. The current chairman's resignation does not take effect until 31 August 1988.

  Abortion
  Mr. Nicholas Bennett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services if he will list the percentage of total abortions carried out on women normally resident outside the United Kingdom and where pregnancy was of 18 weeks or more gestation carried out by the 11 consultant gynaecologists in the private sector who undertook the largest number of such operations in each year since 1968.

  Mr. Newton
  No, for reasons of maintaining confidentiality.

  Mr. Nicholas Bennett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services (1) if he will list by place of residence for each year since 1968 the number of women usually resident outside the United Kingdom where pregnancy was of 18 weeks or more gestation who had an abortion in a National Health Service hospital, and the grounds under which the operations were carried out;

  (2) if he will list by place of residence for each year since 1968 the number of women usually resident outside the United Kingdom where pregnancy was of 18 weeks or more gestation who had an abortion in a non-National Health Service hospital or clinic, and the grounds under which the operations were carried out.

  Mr. Newton
  I regret that the full information requested can be provided only at disproportionate cost. However, the table shows readily available data for 1986 which may be of interest to my hon. Friend.

  Notifications of abortions carried out under the Abortion Act 1967. Non-residents of England and Wales by country of usual residence and grounds. Gestation 18 completed weeks and over.

  England and Wales 1986.

  Country of Usual Residence

  Statutory Grounds

  Total

  2 Alone

  3 With or Without 2

  Other1

  British Isles

  445

  418

  26

  1

  Scotland

  123

  106

  17

  —

  Northern Ireland

  72

  70

  2

  —

  Irish Republic

  224

  218

  5

  1

  Channel Islands and Isle of Man

  26

  24

  2

  —

  Other European

  3,101

  3,056

  35

  10

  Belgium,Luxembourg and Netherlands

  54

  54

  —

  —

  France and Monaco

  1,716

  1,692

  21

  3

  German Federal

  Republic and Austria

  101

  100

  1

  —

  Italy and Malta

  342

  335

  3

  4

  Spain and Portugal

  845

  832

  10

  3

  Rest of World

  142

  140

  1

  1

  1 Mentioning principally grounds 4.

  Statutory Grounds;

  1 The continuance of the pregnancy would involve risk to the life
  452
  of the pregnant woman greater than if the pregnancy were terminated,

  2 The continuance of the pregnancy would involve risk of injury to the physical or mental health of the pregnant woman greater than if the pregnancy were terminated,

  3 The continuance of the pregnancy would involve risk or injure to the physical or mental health of any existing child(ren) in the family of the pregnant woman greater than if the pregnancy were terminated,

  4 There is a substantial risk that if the child were born it would suffer from such physical or mental abnormalities as to be seriously handicapped, or in emergency, certified by the operating practitioner as immediately necessary—

  5 To save the life of the pregnant woman, or

  6 To prevent grave permanent injury to the physical or

  7 mental health of the pregnant woman.

  Benefits
  Mr. Wall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services (1) how many people each year serve two periods of waiting days as a result of transferring from statutory sick pay to unemployment benefit;

  (2) if he will estimate the costs of introducing a linking rule between statutory sick pay and unemployment benefit; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Portillo
  Information is not available of the number of people claiming unemployment benefit within eight weeks of receiving statutory sick pay. However, a rough estimate is that there may be approximately 50,000 a year. Based on this assumption the cost of a linking rule between these benefits would be about £850,000 a year.

  New Hospital, Oldham
  Mr. Meacher
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services if, in the light of the current levels of waiting lists, he will take steps to ensure that sufficient funds are made urgently available to Oldham health authority in 1986 to 1989 to ensure that the new hospital will be fully opened in the next financial year.

  Mr. Newton
  Decisions on the allocation of resources at local level is a matter for Oldham health authority in conjunction with the regional health authority.

  Pensions
  Mr. Madden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services on what date in 1987 the basic pension was increased; and on what date in 1988 the basic pension will be increased.

  Mr. Scott
  Under section 63 of the Social Security Act 1986, the uprating of retirement pension takes place each year in the week beginning with the first Monday in the tax year. In 1987 this was 6 April. In 1988, the first Monday in the tax year is 11 April.

  Northern General Hospital, Sheffield
  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services for how long and why admissions were stopped to the Northern general hospital, Sheffield, on the evening of Monday 21 March; and if he will make a statement.

  Mrs. Currie
  Responsibility for the management of local health services rests with the district health authority (in this case Sheffield). May I suggest the hon. Member should contact the chairman of that authority for the information he seeks.

  Ritalin
  Mr. Battle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services, pursuant to the answer of 18 March,Official Report, column 712, whether the drug Ritalin is still available on National Health Service prescription from general practitioners as a treatment for narcolepsy.

  Mr. Newton
  No. Ritalin is no longer licensed under the Medicines Act and has been withdrawn from the market. However, I understand that it is available direct from the manufacturer at the request of a doctor in respect of an individual patient.

  Northern Regional Health Authority
  Mr. Boyes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services what were the costs to public funds of the administration of Northern regional health authority and Sunderland district health authority in each year since 1979.

  Mr. Newton
  Tables showing each health authority's expenditure on headquarters administration for the years 1979–80 to 1986–87 (the latest available) are in the Library.

  General Practice Finance Corporation
  Mr. Butler
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services if he will make a statement about the future of the General Practice Finance Corporation.

  Mr. Newton
  The Government's plans for the future of the General Practice Finance Corporation were announced in the White Paper "Promoting Better Health" (Cm. 249), published last November. Subject to Parliament's approval for the Health and Medicines Bill the constitution of the corporation will be changed to facilitate maximum use of private sector funds. In the meantime, the existing arrangement for borrowing from public sector funds is continuing.

  To lead the corporation during this important period of change, I am pleased to announce the appointment of Mr. Derek Hughes, the current deputy chairman, to fill the chairman vacancy, and Dr. Alistair Riddell to replace Mr. Hughes as deputy chairman.

  We look forward to further discussion with the corporation and representatives of the profession as we carry our proposals forward. The corporation's annual report for 1986–87 is presented to Parliament today.

  Family Practitioner Committees
  Mr. Butler
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services what plans he has for appointing chairmen and members of family practitioner committees to the vacancies occurring in 1989.

  Mr. Newton
  The term of office of 54 chairmen and of about half the total membership of family practitioner committees ends on 31 March 1989. If hon. Members wish to recommend any individuals as chairmen or as members, I invite them to write to me by 3 May. Reappointments and changes will he announced in due course.

  AIDS and Drug Misuse
  Mr. Forth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services when he intends to publish the first report on AIDS and drug misuse by the Advisory Committee on the Misuse of Drugs; and if he will make a statement.
  454
  Mr. Newton
  We have today published the first report on AIDS and drug misuse from the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs (ACMD). The Government welcome the ACMD's advice on a subject which has serious and wide-ranging public health implications. The spread of the AIDS virus through shared injecting equipment adds a new dimension to drug misuse. It presents a grave threat, not only to drug misusers themselves, but to the babies of infected mothers, to the sexual partners of drug misusers and from them to a wider population.

  The report is concerned with measures to prevent the spread of infection. As it makes clear, the prevention of drug misuse is now more important than ever before. It is self-evident that if people do not start using drugs in the first place they do not put themselves at risk of infection through this route. We remain, therefore, determined to prevent the misuse of drugs, both through tough law enforcement measures to reduce the supply of illicit drugs, and through effective education and information to make it less likely that young people will be tempted to try them. Our strategy will continue to be taken forward through the ministerial group on the misuse of drugs.

  But we must recognise that there is a population currently at risk of acquiring the AIDS virus through their injecting drug misuse, and I accept the ACMD's advice that services should be developed in order to make contact with as many of that population as possible. In recent years we have invested in a significant expansion of drug misuse services, and emphasised the need for the community-based response which the report endorses.

  The report makes a number of recommendations on ways in which services might seek to attract drug misusers, to keep them in contact, and to change their behaviour away from practices which might result in their becoming infected, or passing on infection. Services should be prepared as necessary to advise and encourage drug misusers to reduce the health risks associated with their drug misuse to themselves and to others — as an intermediate goal in getting them to stop drug misuse altogether. Some of the recommendations will require detailed consultation with interested agencies, but in the meantime I am making copies of the report available to health and local authorities in England. My right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales will be taking parallel action for health and local authorities in those countries.

  The ACMD recommends that sterile injecting equipment should be widely available, through an expansion of syringe exchange schemes, and sales through pharmacies. We have considered this recommendation carefully in conjunction with the preliminary findings of an evaluation of 15 "pilot" syringe exchange schemes around the country. While the evaluation points to some promising features of such schemes, we do not consider that we yet have sufficient evidence to recommend an expansion of schemes in England. I accept however that some local agencies in England and Wales have already decided to set up their own exchange schemes, and that more may do so. In order that such schemes should operate as effectively and responsibly as possible, I intend to make available guidance based upon the principles underlying the pilot schemes and drawing on the early lessons of the evaluation. Similar action will be taken in Wales, and further consideration will be given there to the

  455
  place of needle exchange in broader projects of treatment, counselling and rehabilitation with appropriate professional support.

  The report also deal with the treatment of drug misusers in prison, and welcomes the policy statement issued to prison medical officers and others concerned in September 1987. My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary and my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland have considered the ACMD's recommendation concerning the availability of condoms in prison, but believe that it fails to take account of all the relevant factors, including the effect which a resulting increase in homosexual activities would have in terms of risk of HIV infection and otherwise. They do not intend to make any change in present policy in this respect.

  We endorse the ACMD's view that there will be a continuing need for national and local publicity about the link between AIDS and drug misuse. Last year we launched two parallel campaigns designed to deter young people from starting to use drugs, and to warn of the particular dangers—of which AIDS is the most serious — of injecting drug misuse. We are evaluating those campaigns and will be considering future information needs in the light of the evaluation findings.

  The measures advocated by the report will require that all professionals and other staff in contact with drug misusers are adequately trained to deal with the new demands made upon them. We will be discussing with the relevant training bodies how best to ensure this. In Wales, the Welsh Committee on Drug Misuse will be consulted on the way ahead as regards both training and publicity aspects.

  Finally, we intend to monitor carefully the measures we are taking, to assess their effectiveness.

  Health Authority Staff
  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services if he will give for each district health authority and special health authority for 1986 the total number of staff expressed as the total number of staff and as whole time equivalents in the following categories(a) medical and dental, (b) nursing and midwifery, (c) professional and technical, (d) administration and clerical, (e) ancillary and (f) total non-medical staff.

  Mr. Newton
  [holding answer 7 December 1987]: The information the hon. Member requested has now been placed in the Library.

  Geriatric Care
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services what evaluation has been made by his Department of the contribution of qualified geriatric nurses to the success of community care initiatives relating to geriatric people and the use of such qualified nurses by local services in these initiatives.

  Mr. Newton
  [holding answer 18 March 1988]: There is no current research or evaluation of the specific contribution of qualified nurses with geriatric training to the success of community care initiatives. However research is being undertaken by the centre of policy research and development at the university of North Wales which is looking at "Old Age, Health and Formal
  456
  Domiciliary Support", which includes interviews with community nurses as part of an overall study of the working of care in the community.

  There will be training in meeting the needs of elderly people during both district nurse and health visitor training, as well as the opportunity to attend the English National Board course in nursing elderly people. Elderly people requiring nursing care will be assessed by the trained nurse.

TRANSPORT

  Tourism
  Mr. Jack
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what is being done to ensure that consideration is given to tourism before any decisions on motorway and trunk road developments and improvements are made.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  I refer my hon. Friend to the reply I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Bury, South (Mr. Sumberg) on Thursday 26 November at columns 252–53.

  Road Accidents
  Mr. McTaggart
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many road accidents in each of the last five years involving heavy goods vehicles and public service vehicles have been caused by the driver suffering a heart attack.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  The STATS 19 road accident reporting system does not collect data on the causes of road accidents. The number of road accidents involving heavy goods vehicles and buses and coaches during the past three years are given in the table:

  Accidents involving HG Vs, buses and coaches: 1984–86 Number of accidents

  1984

  1985

  1986

  Heavy goods vehicles

  12,950

  13,073

  13,429

  Bus or coach

  12,647

  12,313

  11,988

  Lorry Drivers (Health Checks)
  Mr. McTaggart
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he has any plans to introduce mandatory health checks on heavy goods vehicle and public service vehicle drivers over the age of 50 years, especially those in high risk categories.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  Proposals have recently been presented for drivers of heavy goods vehicles to have medical checks every five years from the age of 45 and annually from 65. This is in line with the present requirements for drivers of public service vehicles. We are now considering the results of public consultation on this issue.

  Departmental Sponsorship
  Ms. Abbott
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport for which industries his Department is the general sponsor; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  The Department exercises regulatory and other functions towards the civil aviation, shipping, ports, railways, public transport including taxi and hire car, and road haulage industries.

  Rail Services (Overcrowding)
  Mr. Henderson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what information he has as to which rail lines are currently subject to particular overcrowding.

  Mr. David Mitchell
  I monitor carefully the performance of lines in those sectors for which loading standards have been agreed. The Government have approved record levels of investment on infrastructure and rolling stock to enable the board to relieve congestion and meet these quality standards. In addition, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport announced on 25 March a joint study with LRT and BR to develop a strategy to cater for projected growth in demand for rail services in central London.

  British Rail (Lost Revenue)
  Mr. David Marshall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what is his estimate of the total revenue lost to British Rail per annum as a result of(a) fraud by passengers travelling without paying, (b) the effects of unmanned stations, (c) rolling stock problems and (d) staff shortages.

  Mr. David Mitchell
  The cost-effective and efficient operation of the railway is a matter for the board's commercial judgment in the light of its objectives and financial targets. The board estimates that about £34 million a year is lost through fraudulent travel, which is why the Government are supporting BR's private Bill to provide for the introduction of a system of penalty fares.

  Driving Test Centre, Bristol
  Mr. David Nicholson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a statement on the present service and staffing of his Department's driving test centre in Bristol, in view of the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State's statement in a letter to the hon. Member for

  Commercial air transport aircraft involved in airmisses1

  Year

  Definitive risk (A)

  Possible risk (B)

  Total3 (A and B)

  No risk (C)

  Total4 (A, B and C)

  1968

  5

  19

  24

  53

  77

  1969

  4

  31

  35

  57

  92

  1970

  10

  31

  41

  58

  99

  1971

  5

  27

  32

  64

  96

  1972

  10

  22

  32

  57

  89

  1973

  12

  28

  40

  46

  86

  1974

  8

  12

  20

  36

  56

  1975

  3

  20

  23

  53

  76

  1976

  10

  25

  35

  53

  88

  1977

  12

  33

  45

  56

  101

  1978

  6

  34

  40

  66

  106

  1979

  5

  24

  29

  61

  90

  1980

  5

  26

  31

  69

  100

  1981

  3

  18

  21

  74

  95

  1982

  6

  5

  11

  50

  61

  1983

  5

  21

  26

  48

  74

  1984

  0

  14

  14

  60

  74

  1985

  1

  15

  16

  44

  60

  1986

  7

  9

  16

  —

  75

  1987

  2TBD

  2TBD

  2TBD

  2TBD

  2256

  1 An 'airmiss' is said to have occurred when a pilot considers that his aircraft may have been endangered by the proximity of another aircraft.

  2 Assessment for 1987 is not yet complete.

  3 Total risk bearing.

  4 Total commercial transport aircraft in airmisses.

  458
  Taunton on 15 February that the computerised system will he fully operational in March and there should then be a significant improvement in the service to the public.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  Driving test bookings in the western traffic area will be fully computerised from 28 March.

  The computer system is working satisfactorily. The associated telephone system is not. This is under urgent review within the Department. In the meantime public access has been limited to 10 am to noon and 2 pm to 4 pm daily.

  Air Misses
  Mr. Tim Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport (1) what criteria he used to determine whether an air miss falls into category A, B, or C, and who makes the determination;

  (2) if he will publish in the Official Report showing (a) the total number of air misses involving commercial aircraft, (b) the number of category A air misses, (c) the number of category B air misses and (d) the number of category C air misses for each of the last 20 years.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  Air misses are assessed by the joint air miss working group (JAWG) an independent group composed of nominees from aviation bodies JAWG follows International Civil Aviation Organisation guidelines in assessing an air miss as one of:

  A: Definite Risk

  B.: Possible Risk

  C.: No Risk

  The Civil Aviation Authority, which is wholly responsible for aviation safety regulation, publishes United Kingdom air miss statistics covering the last 10 years three times a year together with explanatory notes and copies are placed in the Library. The figures requested for commercial air transport aircraft involved in air misses over the last 20 years are as follows:

  Traffic (Sizewell)
  Mr. David Porter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what representations he has had on increased traffic on trunk roads serving the Sizewell area in Suffolk; and what responses he has made.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  Representations have been received from local authorities and others calling for early progress on the proposed A12 Farnham and Stratford St. Andrews bypass, and asking that the scheme should be extended to include other nearby villages on the trunk road. We have indicated that we hope to make an announcement about design arrangements for the scheme shortly. Further improvements will be considered for the programme when they can be justified.

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

  Mr. Channon
  At a formal meeting of European Community Transport Ministers on 14 March, we discussed the width of refrigerated vehicles; road haulage tariffs; procedures for checking recording equipment used in road haulage vehicles, and road haulage drivers' hours and related matters; charging transport infrastructure costs to heavy goods vehicles; access to the market for the carriage of goods by road between member states; and the weights and dimensions of commercial vehicles. I also took the opportunity to press for progress on shipping cabotage.

  Motor Cyclists
  Mr. Sheerman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport which organisations have made representations supporting his Department's proposals on motor cycle leg protection.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  The following organisations, replying to our limited consultation on a specification for leg protectors, supported the proposals:The Medical Commission on Accident Prevention.
  The Automobile Association.
  The Parliamentary Advisory Council for Transport Safety.

  Personalised Car Registration Numbers
  Mr. Hind
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport whether he will widen the choice of personalised car registration numbers open to the motorist by putting unissued numbers on to the market.

  Mr. Channon
  I would like to be able to offer for sale a choice of the attractive registration numbers not currently in circulation. This would, I think, be a welcome addition to the existing arrangements for the private transfer and sale of numbers. As a first step I am today issuing a public consultation paper which sets out and invites comments on proposals for a scheme for selling numbers. In the light of the responses to it we shall decide whether, and if so how, to proceed with such a scheme, for which legislation would he required. I am placing copies of the consultation paper in the Library of the House.

  A46/A17 Newark Relief Road
  Mr. Alexander
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when he will be able to announce the result of the tender for the A46/A17 Newark relief road.

  Mr. Channon
  I am pleased to announce that a contract has been awarded to A. F. Budge (Contractors) Ltd. of Retford for £31·5 million. This represents a saving of £3·5 million (10 per cent.) over the original tenders received in September 1987.

  Work is planned to start on 18 April and take about two and a half years.

  Transport-related Incidents
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many injuries have occurred in transport-related incidents in the United Kingdom in the last year.

  Mrs. Currie
  I have been asked to reply.

  The number of injuries occurring in transport-related incidents is not collected centrally. However, there were 6,094 deaths registered in the United Kingdom in 1986 with an underlying cause of death assigned to transport accidents (International Classification of Diseases 9th revision E800-E848).

  Portsmouth City Transport
  Mr. Robert Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many different tenders have been made available to him in his consideration of applications for the sale of Portsmouth City Transport.

  Mr. David Mitchell
  Details of tenders from nine bidders in two rounds of bidding were made available.

  Mr. Robert Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport whether the highest tender for Portsmouth City Transport accepted on 8 March was higher than, lower than, or the same as the highest bid made in the first round of tendering; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. David Mitchell
  The tender accepted by Portsmouth city council was lower than the highest bid made in the first round of tendering. It was, however, the highest hid made in the second round.

  Mr. Robert Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport on what basis he gave dispensation under section 74 of the Transport Act 1985, for Councillors F. Warner, F. Worley, A. Dann and S. Rapson, of Portsmouth city council, to speak and vote in the council on matters concerned with the sale of Portsmouth City Transport; on what date he received requests for such dispensation; and for what meetings and when he agreed to the requests.

  Mr. David Mitchell
  A request to give a dispensation under section 74 of the Transport Act 1985 to four Portsmouth city councillors who are also directors of Portsmouth City Transport was received on 11 March 1988 to enable the councillors directors to discuss and vote on company matters at the extraordinary meeting of the council convened for 16 March 1988. The Secretary of State granted the dispensation on 15 March 1988. The basis of his decision was that the dispensation would retain the existing political balance of the council; the extraordinary meeting had been called at very short notice;
  461
  full attendance of all councillors was considered problematical; and it was therefore reasonable to provide a dispensation.

  Mr. Robert Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what information he has as to how many different tenders were made available to Portsmouth city councillors in their consideration of applications for Portsmouth City Transport.

  Mr. David Mitchell
  What information was made available to Portsmouth city councillors is a question for the council itself. I understand, however, that information about tenders from nine bidders was made available to councillors.

  Transport Act 1985 (Dispensations)
  Mr. Robert Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will list the number of dispensations made under section 74 of the Transport Act 1985, stating the number of councils for which dispensation has been agreed, and the number of individuals for whom dispensation has been agreed, in each month since the Royal Assent to the Act.

  Mr. David Mitchell
  Dispensations have been given by the Secretary of State on five occasions to local authority councillors who were also directors of the public transport company owned by their authority. The dispensations enable councillors to discuss and vote on certain matters concerning the company. The details are as follows:

  Authorities given dispensations

  Date

  Number of councillors involved

  (a) Stockton on Tees, Langbaurgh and Middlesbrough borough councils (joint application)

  9 May 1986

  17

  462

  Authorities given dispensations

  Date

  Number of councillors involved

  (b) Portsmouth city council

  16 February 1987

  4

  (c) Portsmouth city council

  3 March 1987

  4

  (d) Portsmouth city council

  1 October 1987

  4

  (e) Portsmouth city council

  15 March 1988

  4

  1 Three from Stockton on Tees, one from Langbaurgh and three from Middlesbrough.

  M6 (Thelwall)
  Mr. Mudd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what is the present traffic flow on the M6 at Thelwall; what was the design capacity; and what are the Department's projections for traffic flow at this point in the year 2000.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  At present the average traffic flow across the viaduct throughout the year is about 103,000 vehicles per day. This Includes traffic diverting on to the M6 to avoid long-term roadworks on the M63 at Barton Bridge.

  The current assumed design capacity for a dual three-lane motorway with hard shoulders (not provided on Thelwall viaduct) is up to 79,000 vehicles per day.

  The predicted average daily flow for the year 2000 is in the range 94,000 to 111,000 vehicles per day. This forecast is based on the average daily flow of 81,000 vehicles in 1984, before the Barton Bridge roadworks started.

  I announced in January our plans to widen this part of the M6, including the viaduct, to dual four lanes with hard shoulders throughout.

Preamble
The House met at half-past two of the clock: The LORD CHANCELLOR Oil the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of Newcastle.

Civil and Political Rights: UN Protocol
Lord Elwyn-Jones Lord Elwyn-Jones asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they propose to accede to the optional protocol to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.
The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Lord Glenarthur): My Lords, we have no plans to do so. We have accepted the optional articles of the European convention on human rights which recognise both the right of individual petition and the compulsory jurisdiction of the European Court of Human Rights. We do not believe that becoming a party to the optional protocol would enhance the protection of individual rights in this country.
Lord Elwyn-Jones: My Lords, as the United Kingdom has ratified the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, should we not also ratify the optional protocol, which enables the human rights committee of the United Nations to examine claims from private individuals, from wherever they may be made, that they are the victim of violation of the rights set out in the covenant? Is it not the case that several states which are party to the European convention are also party to the optional protocol? As a general principle, therefore, should not all instruments of international law be ratified by member states of the United Nations?
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, I certainly understand the force of that argument. However, we believe that our acceptance of the optional articles of the European convention provides better protection than the optional protocol. Indeed, the machinery of the European convention is binding upon those who sign it, whereas the optional protocol would not be. It is of course true that other countries have made the link and ratified the optional protocol, but I cannot speak for them.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, is it not the case that the provisions of the optional protocol go beyond the convention and thus safeguard more rights? If that is so, it is difficult to understand why the Government hesitate. What have they to lose? Is there not a great deal to be gained by taking this one step further, when at least 10 of our friends and allies have decided to sign the convention? I ask what is the real reason for the Government's hesitation on the matter.
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, the various themes, which are incorporated in the European convention and the international covenant are broadly very similar indeed. I hope that the noble Lord will recognise that we are prepared to consider proposals which strengthen the obligations on states contained in international human rights instruments. We will of course keep the position on the optional protocol under review. However, I must say again that we believe that our acceptance of the European convention provides better protection than the optional protocol.
Lord Kirkhill: My Lords, the other member nations that have signed the optional protocol will accordingly have a view of the British Government's position on the matter. What has the Minister to say to that proposition?
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, I am afraid I do not have the necessary information to enable me to answer the noble Lord's question directly. However, that may be a question which would be better addressed to the nations concerned.
Lord Elwyn-Jones: My Lords, surely it is extraordinary that this country, having ratified the covenant, is now apparently refusing to take steps to make it a reality and thus enable individuals to complain to the human rights committee, which is doing extremely valuable work. Why are we dragging our heels once again in this field?
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, for the reasons that I have already explained to the noble and learned Lord, I do not believe that by going down the path which he suggests that we should in fact enhance what he and others would like to see so firmly enshrined.
Lord Mellish: My Lords, will the Minister be good enough to give us details of some of the countries that have already signed the protocol?
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, 38 states have now ratified the optional protocol, including, Denmark, Finland, France, Iceland, Italy, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, Norway, Portugal, Spain and Sweden. I also believe that Austria and the Federal Republic of Germany are preparing to do so.
Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone: My Lords, is there not something to be said for having one acknowledged set of human rights and one tribunal before which such cases can come and not two concurrent and potentially divergent sets, with two concurrent and potentially divergent tribunals, leading to forum shopping?
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, I think that my noble and learned friend is right; the situation could lead to confusion rather than assisting those concerned.

Unemployment Statistics
2.42 p.m.
The Viscount of Oxfuird The Viscount of Oxfuird asked Her Majesty's Government:
What are the latest figures they have for the level of long-term unemployment.
The Minister of State for Defence Procurement (Lord Trefgarne): My Lords, on 14th January 1988 the number of unemployed claimants who have been unemployed for one year or more in the United Kingdom was nearly 1,101,000. This is of course still far too high, but it is now at its lowest level for over four years.
The Viscount of Oxfuird: My Lords, will my noble friend tell the House how the figures compare with those of a year ago?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, as I indicated in my original Answer, the figures are now going downward progressively, very much as a result of government policy.
Baroness Turner of Camden: My Lords, is the Minister aware that recent research indicates that there is substantial depressive illness and even suicide among the long-term unemployed which is much more than in the general population? Should not something be done about that situation?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, I am not sure that it is right to ascribe the phenomenon which the noble Baroness mentioned as the only cause of the illness to which she refers. Naturally, we should like to bring steadily downwards the number of unemployed people, which is what we are now doing, because of course the effects of unemployment are most undesirable.
Lord Wallace of Coslany: My Lords, is the Minister aware that although, as he states, figures are dropping as a result of government policy, there was a dramatic rise when the present Government took over?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, the rise was initiated by the Government of our predecessors. We had first to arrest that steadily increasing trend when we came into office.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: My Lords, will my noble friend tell the House what progress the Government are making over the provision of opportunities for adult basic education for those who have been out of work for some time, and whether it has proved effective?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, we now have a whole range of training programmes to help the unemployed, including the older unemployed and those who have been unemployed for a longer period. Those training programmes include the provision of basic education where necessary.
Baroness Seear: My Lords, does the Minister agree that the employment of the long-term unemployed,
594
many of whom are unskilled, is greatly helped by the increase in employment of skilled people who fill vacancies, of which there are now a considerable number? In other words, when skilled people obtain jobs, with any luck they are likely to carry unskilled people with them. Therefore, will the Minister consider that where unemployment is falling rapidly, as is fortunately the case in many areas, training money, which is allocated only to people who have been out of work for six months in the case of young people, or for over two years in the case of others, should be lowered to speed up the employment of skilled people and by so doing grab up the employment of the unskilled?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, I am not sure that I quite understand what the noble Baroness is saying; but, if I catch her correctly, she makes a good point. It is important for all the different categories of unemployed people to have the training that is appropriate to their needs. That is why we attach such importance to the training and the provision of training opportunities for unemployed people. That policy lies at the heart of the recent announcement.
Lord Blease: My Lords, the Minister gave the total figures for the United Kingdom. Does he have readily available the percentage figures for England, Scotland, Northern Ireland and Wales?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, I do not have those figures in front of me. I shall happily write to the noble Lord with them.
Lord Stewart of Fulham: My Lords, the Minister referred to adult basic education. Is he aware that one of the best examples of that education is that provided by the ILEA, and that no one knows what will happen to it?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, a great many other education authorities provide the type of service to which the noble Lord has referred and which I prefer to the ILEA.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, is the Minister aware that we are gravely apprehensive about the method of calculating the numbers of unemployed? Is he further aware that in the last six months of the Government of my noble friend Lord Callaghan, before the present Government took over, inflation and unemployment were coming down? That can be seen in any statistical research. Should not the Minister read that statistical research and withdraw his earlier statement?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, if the noble Lord believes that he will believe anything.
Lord Jay: My Lords, is it the Government's view that when unemployment goes down it is due to the Government, but that when it goes up it is not due to the Government?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, I am sorry, but I did not hear the noble Lord's question. If he will put it again I shall try to answer it.
Lord Jay: My Lords, is it the Government's view that when unemployment goes down it is due to the Government, but that when it goes up it is not due to the Government?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, unemployment was going up steadily when we came into office.
Noble Lords: No!
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, when we came into office it was necessary at once to introduce programmes to deal with that position, but because of the depth of the problem it took a little while for those programmes to take effect.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, in relation to the noble Lord's discourteous answer to my noble friend, is the Minister aware that the unemployment figure in 1978 when Labour left office was 1,278,000? That is less than half the cooked figures which the Government now produce?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, certainly in 1979— not 1978—when we came into office, unemployment was on a rising trend. The figure which the noble Lord has mentioned is perfectly correct. That was the case. Naturally, it took some time for the programmes we had to put into place then, and subsequently, to have an effect on that sharply rising trend. I want to be fair to noble Lords opposite. The sharply rising trend was not confined to the United Kingdom; it was just particularly bad here.
Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone: My Lords, would not the questions from the opposite side be slightly more impressive if the trade union movement and the Labour Party got their act together over the Ford factory in Dundee instead of losing the lot?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, as I am always accused of being unfair to noble Lords opposite, not only today but on previous occasions, I thought it better to leave that observation to be made from behind me or beside me.
Lord Mackie of Benshie: My Lords, the questions have taken a distinctly political turn. I should like to ask the noble Lord a completely unbiased question. He belongs to a government who believe in business methods. All good businesses have targets. Would he tell the House what the Government consider to be the figure of unemployment at which they are aiming? What is the desirable figure of unemployment in this country today?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, the desirable target which we seek to reach is one substantially below the present level.
Lord Glenamara: My Lords, as regards this euphoria about the fall in the unemployment figures which we welcome—that is the fall in the figures, not the euphoria—would the noble Lord not lose sight of the fact that in the North-East of England we still have up to 40 per cent. male unemployment?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, I am not sure whether that figure is exactly accurate. I agree that there are parts of the United Kingdom where unemployment is still far too high. That is what I said in the original Answer.
Lord Hatch of Lusby: My Lords, the noble Lord says that the figure for the long-term unemployed is falling. Is it not the case that the figure for long-term unemployment among those under 25 is rising steeply?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, I do not believe that that is the case. But it is a detail within the statistics that I shall check.

Rover Group
2.52 p.m.
Lord Bruce-Gardyne Lord Bruce-Gardyne asked Her Majesty's Government:
What progress they are making in negotiations with the European Commission in Brussels regarding the writing-off of debt in the Austin Rover balance sheet in the context of the bid by British Aerospace to acquire control of Austin Rover.
The Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (Lord Young of Graffham): My Lords, with the leave of the House I shall in a few minutes make a Statement to the House on the Rover Group privatisation and the bid by British Aerospace. In the circumstances my noble friend may feel that it would not be appropriate for me to attempt a reply to his Question in advance of my Statement. Noble Lords will of course have a full opportunity to ask me questions arising out of my Statement in the usual way. I hope very much that other noble Lords will also be content to defer further consideration of this matter until then.
Lord Bruce-Gardyne: My Lords, I am most grateful to my noble friend for that reply. I am sure noble Lords will look forward very much to the Statement which my noble friend is about to make.

TV-am: Contract Obligations
2.53 p.m.
Lord Graham of Edmonton Lord Graham of Edmonton asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether TV-am is in breach of its contract and if so what steps they are taking to ensure that the Independent Broadcasting Authority fulfils its duties under the Broadcasting Act 1981 by taking appropriate measures against TV-am.
The Earl of Arran: My Lords, it is entirely for the Independent Broadcasting Authority to determine the way it discharges its responsibilities under the Broadcasting Act 1981.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: My Lords, is the Minister aware that when TV-am applied for and got the franchise, it promised that it would extend regional coverage, community input and consumer

597
affairs? None of that has been delivered. Perhaps I may ask the Minister a simple question: if the premises upon which the franchise was obtained are false, surely the Government should demand of the IBA that it fulfil its obligations under the Broadcasting Act 1981?
The Earl of Arran: My Lords, under the Broadcasting Act 1981 the IBA is required to ensure that programmes broadcast by the authority maintain a high general standard, a proper balance and a wide range in their subject matter. If the authority should conclude that a particular contractor was not fulfilling his contract it would be open to the authority to take such steps as are necessary to secure compliance with the contract or to terminate the contract.
Baroness Phillips: My Lords, surely the Minister is not completely quoting the Act. The IBA specified that any concession that was given must include more British material than material bought in from other countries. Now TV-am is certainly contravening the Act. I hope the Minister will accept that it may be the responsibility of the Government to see that the Act is carried out completely.
The Earl of Arran: My Lords, of course I take the noble Baroness's point. But I must again repeat that it is ultimately the responsibility of the IBA to see that its contractors carry out its wishes as laid down in the contract.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: My Lords, if it is the view of the Government that the IBA is failing to fulfil those obligations—and the Government are entitled to a view—what are the Government intending to do about it? If what we hear is true and there is to be an inquiry into the state of the television industry, will the Minister make sure that among the matters examined are not only the obligations of employees but also the obligations of employers to carry out their legal statutory requirements?
The Earl of Arran: My Lords, one of the fundamental principles of our system of public service broadcasting is that the broadcasting authority should be free from government interference in its day-to-day affairs. I am sure noble Lords agree that it would be a sad day if this important principle were to be jeopardised.

Business
Lord Denham: My Lords, it may be for the convenience of the House if I announce that the Third Reading of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Bill will be adjourned at approximately 7.30 p.m. for approximately one hour and that during this adjournment the Housing Benefit (General) Amendment Regulations 1988, the Housing Benefit (Supply of Information) Regulations 1988, the Social Security (Payments on account, Overpayments and Recovery) Regulations 1988, the Income Support (General) Amendment Regulations 1988 and the Family Credit (General) Amendment Regulations 1988 will be taken.

Rover Group
2.56 p.m.
Lord Young of Graffham: My Lords, with the leave of the House I shall now make a Statement on the Rover Group plc.
I informed the House on 1st March that British Aerospace had declared a serious interest in acquiring the government shareholding in Rover Group and that negotiations were being put in hand. British Aerospace asked that the negotiations should be on an exclusive basis. We agreed to this provided that the further studies it wished to carry out on Rover Group and the negotiations between British Aerospace and the Government were concluded by the end of April.
I promised to return and report the outcome of these discussions to the House at the earliest opportunity. I can do this today because British Aerospace has completed its investigations satisfactorily earlier than anticipated. The negotiations have therefore been concluded and agreement reached. The rules of the Stock Exchange require that in these circumstances an announcement is made without delay.
Today we have entered into a conditional contract with British Aerospace for the sale of the Government's shareholding in Rover Group. Before entering into the contract with British Aerospace we considered a number of confidential expressions of interest but none amounted to a specific offer. The board of Rover Group believes that this is the best possible outcome for the group. British Aerospace is strongly committed to the further development and growth of Rover Group, working with the existing Rover Group management who have made so much progress in improving the performance of the businesses.
Honda told me that it welcomed the continuity of Rover Group's management team which would be assured by British Aerospace's ownership of the company. I therefore hope that the important operational partnership between Rover Group and Honda can continue to develop satisfactorily. Without constraining British Aerospace's day-to-day management of the business, we have agreed important conditions on the agreement. British Aerospace has undertaken not to relinquish control of either Austin Rover or Land Rover within five years. This undertaking is supported by legal arrangements designed to ensure that it is not to its financial advantage so to do.
I shall now turn to the main financial terms of the agreement. During the negotiations it has been impressed on me by the board of British Aerospace that Rover Group operates in a highly competitive industry and that, notwithstanding the recovery in 1987, its current and prospective levels of profitability are insufficient to meet the interest burden on the debt built up through many years of accumulated losses.
The Government have been equally concerned that the merger of these two major British manufacturing groups should only move forward on a firm financial footing. Since 1975 when the Government became the majority owner of British Leyland the banks have

599
been content to advance large sums on the strength of the Government's involvement.
In order that the company is in a fit state to return to the private sector it is appropriate that we should deal with this accumulated indebtedness, which no company without similar backing could be expected to maintain. Of course we would have had to undertake this exercise whatever route had been adopted for Rover Group's privatisation. The Government have therefore agreed that they will make a cash injection of £800 million into Rover Group for this purpose.
Following agreement on these steps to strengthen the Rover Group balance sheet we have been able to conclude an agreement to sell the government shareholding in Rover Group for £150 million. We have also agreed with British Aerospace and Rover Group arrangements whereby £1·1 billion of Rover Group's trading tax losses will be effectively eliminated, leaving only £500 million of these losses to be claimed against Rover Group profits in the future.
British Aerospace has also agreed that other currently available tax relief within Rover Group will only be applicable within that group
I turn now to the elimination of the Varley-Marshall-Joseph parliamentary assurances relating to Rover Group's bank debts, trade creditors and other obligations. These currently total approximately £1·6 billion. While Rover Group has been in public ownership the Government have given assurances that the obligations of the group will be met. No new obligations incurred by the Rover Group after the date of completion will benefit from the assurances. Obligations incurred between now and the completion date will cease to benefit from the assurances on completion.
The negotiations with British Aerospace have concerned only the Government's shareholding in Rover Group. British Aerospace has said that following completion of its acquisition of the Government's shares, it will make separate proposals to Rover Group's minority shareholders in due course to acquire their shares.
British Aerospace has made clear that these proposals will be fair and reasonable and will be made after consultation with the Rover Group board and its advisers. The agreement is of course subject to the approval of the British Aerospace shareholders and the completion of the normal EC procedures. I also expect to receive the advice of the Director General of Fair Trading.
I should like to explain what progress there has been on the EC implications of these plans. On 14th March we notified to the EC Commission that we proposed to deal with the necessary restructuring of Rover Group's finances. I met Commissioner Sutherland on 23rd March to explain the Government's objectives and proposals. I had a further meeting with Commissioner Sutherland yesterday.
The Commission has met today and has decided to open a formal state aid procedure. I am confident that the Commission will expedite its investigation.
600
The agreement should bring to a successful conclusion the privatisation initiative which began in earnest with the flotation of Jaguar in 1984. This process accelerated when Graham Day took office in May 1986. He has returned 18 Rover Group businesses to private ownership. These include the trucks and bus activities, Unipart, Istel and Jaguar Rover Australia, which are all trading profitably under their new owners.
In the hands of British Aerospace, Rover Group would have the best available chance of developing its independent role in the vehicle industry. We cannot afford to underestimate the contribution to the economy of the largest UK passenger vehicle producer with a turnover of £3 billion, exports of £1 billion, direct employment of 43,000 and indirect employment of two or three times that number in the component supply sector, as well as over 50,000 jobs in Rover Group's distribution networks.
This will strengthen Rover Group's ability to compete at home and abroad and thus benefit all those who work with and for it, as well as the economy as a whole. I commend it to the House.
My Lords, that concludes the Statement.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, the House will be grateful to the noble Lord for making this Statement. The British Aerospace shareholders will no doubt think that Christmas has come rather early this year. On our side we believe that this constitutes an abandonment of the Government's fiduciary duty to the taxpayer.
Rover has a net worth of £770 million, which is being sold for £150 million, but the Government are producing a cash injection of £800 million. In other words net assets of £770 million are being sold, or rather the Government are paying British Aerospace £650 million to take the group off their hands. In addition the Government are giving a tax holiday to Rover Group under British Aerospace ownership up to £500 million, because, as the noble Lord rightly said, those losses can be used to set off against tax in future profits of the Rover business.
There will be no tax revenue to the Government from the future Rover business under whatever ownership it may be until those accumulated tax losses have been worked off. Will the noble Lord answer the following questions? On what terms will the £800 million cash injection be made? Why could it not be made to the existing Rover Group without a sale to British Aerospace?
What assurances are there for the workforce? We hear that there are assurances to the management but what assurances are there to the workforce? What belief can we have after the large losses that according to the press British Aerospace is going to announce, or may indeed have announced, that this will be a group which has financial viability and that we shall not see the same repetition of collapse that we have seen under previous Conservative Governments such as the collapse of Rolls-Royce?
What happened to the Rover corporate plan? Just at the point when Mr. Day said that Rover Group was turning a corner, that it was making profits and that it had a bright future, it is sent to the knacker's yard. We believe that this is an act of desperation.

601
The Government have no faith in Rover's future. We have and we wish that the Government would abort the deal straight away.
Baroness Seear: My Lords, we on these Benches also wish to thank the Secretary of State for making the Statement in the House this afternoon. We have also frequently been critical of the Government for selling the family silver. We are even more critical of them for giving away the family silver, even if on this occasion it is somewhat tarnished.
There can be no question but that this step will incur a very heavy loss indeed for the taxpayer, as the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Elvel, has already made clear. The Government believe in the free market. They tell us in this Statement in a rather curious paragraph that they have considered a number of "confidential expressions of interest". We should like to know more about those. I suppose we shall be told that they are confidential and that therefore we cannot know about them.
But was it really not possible at least to attempt to make a better deal than handing Rover over at such enormous loss to British Aerospace? If the Government believe in their own policies of getting the best possible deal that they can in any transaction, it seems extraordinary that this should have been confined to a deal with British Aerospace and that nobody else effectively has come in. Indeed nobody else was able to come in because British Aerospace made the condition, or rather was offered the condition, of a deal provided it settled at the end of April. That seems the most extraordinary way to do business if there is something to be sold.
So we are deeply concerned about this. We are also somewhat concerned about the outcome of the formal investigation that is going on with the EC. Surely this is a very heavy subsidy to industry? What will the EC be likely to say about that as regards its competition policy?
Lord Young of Graf ham: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Williams, although I confess that I found it rather difficult to follow him. He started by saying that Father Christmas had come to British Aerospace and concluded by saying that the deal would undermine its whole future. I believe that this is a well-balanced deal.
The noble Lord drew attention to what the net worth of the Rover Group may or may not be. I am sure that it is a matter of public record that over the past five years the performance of the Rover Group has been an aggregate loss of £1·1 billion. That is an unfortunate record and one which I have no doubt will be improved under new management. The results of last year were a vast improvement on the previous year. However, those results showed a considerable loss after interest and tax.
The noble Lord asked what assurances we will give to the workforce. The assurances which may be given by anyone to the workforce are precisely those which can be given to the management. They last for as long as the products produced are those which customers want. There are no assurances beyond that. Indeed, the whole sorry history of Rover from 1976 onwards is demonstrated by that.
602
The noble Lord also asked what the terms of the grant of £800 million are. The terms are such as to ensure that we are not giving the Rover Group a £500 million tax holiday. We are asking it to extinguish some £1·1 billion of existing tax losses which it will not be claiming. In other words, the tax losses are being reduced from £1·6 million to £500 million. Due to the sorry past record, the losses were that heavy. By that one act, the taxpayer will be saved some £400 million in tax revenue in the future. It also ensures that should the company endeavour to dispose of any of the businesses over the first five years, the net proceeds of the sale will be repayable to the Government.
I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Seear, for her comments. She says that the agreement is a heavy loss to the taxpayer. It is in fact doing no more than recognising the existing position. It is an unfortunate but perhaps happy accident of the past that the Varley Marshall undertakings were such that the banks carried on giving credit to the Rover Group, secure in the knowledge that ultimately the Government would meet the bill. What we are doing today is meeting that bill, which was incurred over the last few years. We are putting right the overdrafts which exist. We have to do that in order to put the firm back into the private sector. Perhaps that is not a heavy toll for the taxpayer. However, it was a toll which was incurred over past years.
The noble Baroness asked why we dealt with confidential expressions of interest. Can Members of your Lordships' House have forgotten that just two years ago there was an expression of interest by the Ford Motor Company and that six weeks later the Rover Group had lost over 2 per cent., of its market share in the United Kingdom, reducing its share of the market from 18 per cent. to 16 per cent.? It never recovered from that loss. Today its market share is 15.8 per cent. The lost annual sales were £250 million.
British Aerospace was the first company which said that it was anxious to acquire the Rover Group. In looking at the approaches that were made, I have to take into account the future of not only the 43,000 people working in the Rover Group but also the 51,000 people who work in the distributors' network. That was the reason that I told the House that we were going through a period of exclusivity. I also said—it was repeated by my noble and learned friend the Chancellor of the Duchy—that if anyone made an offer we would consider the offer before finally accepting the British Aerospace offer. No such offer ever came.
We are today starting the procedure in Brussels. It may well be that the agreement will have an effect on competiton policy. However, I believe that it is simply a recognition of reality, because the losses have long existed, as have the debts. In any event, they would have had to be paid off one day. I hope that as the months go by we shall negotiate successfully through the tortuous and difficult procedure involved. However, I should like to discuss that with Commissioner Sutherland. I hope one day to return to your Lordships' House and say that we have been successful.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, I have one question of fact. Will the noble Lord reply to my

603
question as regards the terms under which the cash injection will be made? I understand that there will be a £1·1 billion write-off in accounting terms of tax losses. Will the cash injection be repayable in any form or will it be in the form of simple grant?
Lord Young of Graffham: My Lords, it is both. It is in the form of a simple grant by way of a security which is repayable only if businesses are disposed of during the period and/or tax losses over and above £500 million are claimed. If so, it is repayable to the extent of the benefit achieved by the company.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, my noble friend has given details of the number of jobs involved directly which will continue as a result of this operation. However, can he tell the House how many jobs in component manufacturers are also involved and will continue?
Lord Young of Graffham: My Lords, the estimates I have indicate that there are something between 90,000 and 120,000 jobs involved in the component supply industry for the Rover Group.
3.15 p.m.
Viscount Chandos: My Lords, I should like to thank the Secretary of State for the Statement and his subsequent amplification of it. In principle, I and my colleagues in the SDP repeat our earlier welcome to the proposed acquisition of the Rover Group by British Aerospace.
If a sale is to take place—and the Government have long made clear their intentions—then will the House not agree, as Bill Jordan of the engineering workers' union said on the day of the earlier announcement, that it would be difficult to imagine a more suitable purchaser? Does the Secretary of State agree that the suggestions by the press and financial analysts that there are no synergies or industrial logic in the deal missed the key point that the general commitment by British Aerospace to manufacturing excellence, technological innovation and research and development is what makes it the best placed purchaser of Rover, both to build on its recent success and to strengthen British manufacturing industry as a whole?
Is the Secretary of State not concerned, after the comments of other noble Lords and notwithstanding the desirability of the deal from the point of view of public interest, that British Aerospace has been offered too favourable an agreement to take on the undoubted risks of the acquisition? Has the noble Lord, with his advisers, studied the precedents in the United States, whereby the US Government, in consideration for the financial support—
Noble Lords: Reading!
Viscount Chandos:—given to the Chrysler Corporation, took warrants in shares of the company that ensured that in the event of the company's ultimate success, the Government stood to gain some benefit from that success? Does the noble Lord not think that a similar arrangement, which is also used in the United States when the federal authorities
604
rescue failing banks, would have given the UK taxpayer some potential return from the investment over the past 13 years? In addition—
Noble Lords: No!
Viscount Chandos:—could this not have presented an opportunity to give a similar interest to the employees of Rover and a consequential incentive after a number of difficult and hard years to maintain a productive and tranquil atmosphere of industrial relations?
Lord Young of Graffham: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Viscount for his support of the arrangement. I assure noble Lords that the policy of the Government has been to achieve the return of the Rover Group to the private sector. We have considered many ways in which that could be accomplished. It seems to us that this is the best way and that the reward of the Government will be the continuation of component suppliers and distributors, as well as a healthy future for Austin Rover Group as an independent British producer of quality cars.
Lord Bruce-Gardyne: My Lords, I should like to thank my noble friend for his Statement. However, we are conjoined in the parable about looking gift horses in the mouth. Is it not a fact that British Aerospace is currently losing a king's ransom on every component that it makes for the Airbus project? Is it not apparent that, even on these golden, give away terms, the needs of Austin Rover for capital injections in the future, coupled with the cost of British Aerospace's civil aircraft programme, will leave horrendous burdens on the balance sheet of that business?
Can my noble friend assure us that the commitment that British Aerospace should not be allowed for five years to pass on Rover to another perhaps better endowed purchaser such as Ford or General Motors will not be written in tablets of stone so that at least British Aerospace in due course may be able to make a handsome turn? Failing that, what is the likelihood of the European Commission finding that the deal which he has structured is not acceptable in terms of European competition policy?
Finally, failing all those, has he had a word with our right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Defence about the possible requirements of British Aerospace for very large and profitable defence orders in the future if Austin Rover is to be sustained in the style to which it has become accustomed?
Lord Young of Graffham: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend. When I left industry and came to this present life of mine I vowed that I would leave behind making judgments on commercial matters. I should like to remind the House that it was the board of British Aerospace which approached the Government first. It is the board of British Aerospace which has investigated the future of Rover. It is the board of British Aerospace which judged it prudent and sensible to proceed with this purchase. My noble friend must have his own opinions, but in this matter it is surely the commercial

605
judgment of British Aerospace that is appropriate. I do not contemplate—nor I suspect does the board—that British Aerospace will run into difficulties in the future. If that were to happen the Government would listen to anyone at that time. If there were a better course and a better way of dealing with Rover, we would have considered it seriously.
Lord Peston: My Lords, will the noble Lord answer the question asked by my noble friend Lord Williams of Elvel? In previous privatisations, whether or not one agreed with them, the private sector ended up with the real assets of the business and the Exchequer ended up with some cash. In this one, as the noble Lord has described it, the private sector appears to me at least to end up with the business but the Exchequer is out of pocket to the tune of £650 million. That is exactly what the Minister has said. Will he confirm that that is the case?
Lord Young of Graffham: Yes, my Lords, I am happy to confirm that the Varley-Marshall assurances of some £1·6 billion will disappear, hopefully within a year; that the stream of losses from Rover which the taxpayer has patiently borne, amounting to £1·1 billion over the past five years, will cease to be a burden on the taxpayer; and that Rover will look forward to a good future. That is the case. It is true that the Government will inject £800 million to pay off the existing debts of the company, liabilities of government which exist today. The Government will receive some £150 million for the shareholding.
Lord Joseph: My Lords, is the Secretary of State aware that, considering the worst and the best that might have happened, his Statement at least gives a new chance to the management, the workforce, the suppliers and the dealers, without future explicit risk to the taxpayer? Will he say whether output of cars per man year has improved since nationalisation? Is there scope for further improvement and, among other possible results, for a larger share of the market?
Lord Young of Graffham: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend. Since 1979 output per man has doubled in the Rover Group. It is now up to European standards. Its objective is to beat European standards and to compete with the rest of the world. In looking at this proposed sale in the round, I hope that all noble Lords, particularly noble Lords opposite, will listen at least to the views expressed by the workforce, the distributors and all who work in Rover, and be cautious about the ways they judge the outcome of this deal.
Lord Mackie of Benshie: My Lords, the Government have agreed that they will make a cash injection of £800 million into the Rover Group to pay off the banks. On the next page of the Statement the noble Lord refers to the elimination of the Varley-Marshall assurances. He said:
"These currently total approximately £1·6 billion".
Does he hope that British Aerospace will be able to pay those off and thereby release the Government? Or will the Government remain liable for the £1·6 billion?
Lord Young of Graffham: My Lords, half or so of the £1·6 billion assurances will be paid off when the £800 million which the Government pay discharges the bank debts. The remainder will be paid off in the course of time as trade creditors and other obligations are paid. What will happen—probably after the end of the year—is that the Varley-Marshall-Joseph assurances will have been eliminated and will be part of the normal trading obligations of the Rover Group as a subsidiary of British Aerospace should this matter proceed.
Lord Harmar-Nicholls: My Lords, if my noble friend and the Government are satisfied that this is a good deal under all the circumstances for the company and for the workforce, will he give a complete assurance that he will not allow any interpretation by the European Commission to sink it?
Lord Young of Graffham: My Lords, the procedure started today. The matter will take some months and I very much hope that we shall reach agreement. It would be foolhardy to say what you anticipate doing on the very day you start.
Lord Glenamara: My Lords, perhaps I may ask the noble Lord about a rather different matter. Does he recollect that when Cable and Wireless was privatised legislation was required? That was a publicly owned company. In this case, apparently there is to be no legislation. And there was certainly no electoral mandate. Are the Government quite sure that they have the legal right to sell off the business without parliamentary approval?
Lord Young of Graffham: My Lords, Austin Rover was once British Leyland and is a public company. It is still a public company. There are some 60,000 to 80,000 outside shareholders. The last two elections gave us the basis of our mandate for this action.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, is there a net benefit or a net detriment to the British taxpayer overall? I do not believe the noble Lord has answered that question in terms in which I, at least, can understand. Perhaps he will do so. My other question relates to the European Commission. If, after it has made an investigation, the Commission decides that this deal is against the rules of competition, what will the Government do then? Will they drop this proposal? If it is declared illegal, will they pursue the proposal irrespective of its legality under European law?
Lord Young of Graffham: My Lords, at present the Varley-Marshall assurances total some £1·6 billion for a net cost of £650 million, which, as I said, is the £800 million that we shall be putting into the company less the £150 million that we shall accept as the proceeds of sale of the shares. We shall be extinguishing that £1·6 billion liability. That demonstrates the benefit to government.
As regards the noble Lord's second point, if I have had one principle in my life it is not worrying about hypothetical situations. Preparing for them, yes. Should that situation unfortunately arise, I will then come to your Lordships' House.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, can the noble Lord say in which of the two previous manifestoes this subject was referred to so that we can understand whether the Government have a mandate for what is proposed?
Lord Young of Graffham: My Lords, I hardly think that the process of privatisation was a closely guarded secret in our manifesto of 1979 or at the time of the two subsequent elections.

Copyright, Designs and Patents Bill [H.L.]
3.30 p.m.
Lord Denham: My Lords, I have it in command from Her Majesty the Queen to acquaint the House that Her Majesty, having been informed of the purport of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Bill, is content to place her prerogative and interests so far as they are affected by the Bill at the disposal of Parliament for the purposes of the Bill.
Bill read a third time.
Clause 2 [Rights subsisting in copyright works]:
Lord Beaverbrook Lord Beaverbrook moved Amendment No. 1:
Page 2, line 7, leave out subsection (2) and insert—
("(2) In relating to certain descriptions of copyright work the following rights conferred by Chapter IV (moral rights) subsist in favour of the author, director or commissioner of the work, whether or not he is the owner of the copyright—

(a) section 72 (right to be identified as author or director),

(b) section 75 (right to object to derogatory treatment of work), and

(c) section (Right to privacy of certain photographs and films) (right to privacy of certain photographs and films.").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 1, I shall also speak to Amendments Nos. 86, 87, 93, 94, 95, 98, 101, 105 and 206. The noble Lord, Lord Morton of Shuna, tabled an amendment to Clause 11 at Report stage which would have given the commissioner of a photograph or film taken or made for private purposes first ownership of copyright. As I explained then, the Government felt that the underlying sentiment of the amendment to protect the privacy of individuals was laudable but we remained of the view that the author should in general be first owner of copyright.
To avoid introducing new anomalies into the Bill we decided that the best way of providing a privacy measure was in the form of a moral right. As the amendment to Clause 2 shows, the right will be enjoyed by the commissioner of certain works. This amendment also foreshadows the changes that we are proposing to the integrity right, but this will be discussed later. This right, as the new clause after Clause 78 specifies, will be enjoyed by anyone commissioning the taking of a photograph or the making of a film for private and domestic purposes, and it means that the work may not subsequently be made public without the permission of the commissioner.
If we take the example of wedding photographs, the commissioned photographer will own the copyright. He will be able to make the required number of copies of the photographs but he will not be able to do certain acts or authorise anyone else to
608
do them. Thus he may not issue copies to the public, exhibit them in the shop window or include them in a broadcast or cable programme without the commissioner's permission.
Subsection (3) of the new clause provides the exception to the privacy right, and like the other moral rights it will continue to subsist as long as copyright subsists in the work. Where the work is made in pursuance of a joint commission, each commissioner will enjoy the right independently of the others. The right will apply to the whole or any substantial part of a work and, like the other moral rights, the privacy right is not assignable but may pass on death in the same way. Amendment No. 206 to Schedule 1 provides that the right does not apply to photographs taken or films made before commencement.
As I explained to your Lordships' House at Report stage, there is a limit to the extent to which the law of copyright may be used to protect privacy. However, by providing this new form of moral right for those commissioning photographs and films for private events I believe that we have found an answer to the question of privacy. Those who commission photographs and films, especially those in the public eye, can be reassured that they will now have a remedy against those who would splash those very personal and private pictures across the tabloid press. I hope that these amendments meet the concerns expressed by your Lordships and especially by the noble Lord, Lord Morton of Shuna, at Report stage. I beg to move.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, we are grateful to the Government for their response to the amendment moved by my noble friend. I shall speak to the same group of amendments as did the noble Lord, Lord Beaverbrook. If I may say so, it seems to us that the response goes only half way. We were looking for a protection under the main copyright part of the Bill. In his amendment the noble Lord has offered us a protection under the moral rights section of the Bill.
There are disadvantages in the moral rights concept that we have pointed out on a number of occasions in Committee and at the Report stage of the Bill. The greatest disadvantage seems to be the necessity for the holder of moral right having to assert that right as opposed to having it automatically without any assertion. In the case which was referred to by the noble Lord and which we are discussing under Amendment No 1, it seems to us weaker to put this assurance—the new clause suggested by Amendment No. 86—into the moral rights section of the Bill than into the copyright section of the Bill, as we first wished.
I should like to make two small points on the government amendments. In Amendment No. 1 one comes across the expression "derogatory treatment", which seems to replace the expression "unjustified modification" which appears in Clause 75. I am not and do not pretend to be a lawyer. I do not understand quite why the Government have sought to change the words "unjustified modification", which seem to us to be perfectly comprehensible, to the expression "derogatory treatment", which has a slightly different connotation. "Treatment"

609
presumably covers modification but the word "unjustified" does not necessarily mean derogatory. I should be grateful if the noble Lord when he comes to reply would explain the Government's reasoning and tell us why they have used that new expression which at least one of my noble and learned friends on the Front Bench was unable to explain to me when I showed it to him a few minutes ago.
My second small point concerns Amendment No. 86, which covers the new clause to which the noble Lord referred. In the new subsection (2)(a), which refers to:
"section 31 (incidental inclusion of work in an artistic work, film, broadcast or cable programme)",
I do not see any reference to inclusion incidentally of such a work in a work of compilation.
The Government responded to points that I raised in Committee about collage. There are other works of compilation which may well be included in artistic works—and the noble Lord may be able to assure me of that—but they may well be outside the definitions that he has used in Amendment No. 86 for subsection (2)(a) of the proposed new clause.
I do not wish to carp about government concessions. I believe that the Government have moved in the right direction. However, despite the fact that some of my noble friends do not agree with me on this matter, I still feel that the director of a film and the commissioner of a work have rights which should properly he expressed in an economic interest rather than in moral rights. Nevertheless, for the moment, pending the passage of the Bill in another place and subject to the clarifications which I requested from the noble Lord, we are happy not to challenge these amendments.
Lord Brain: My Lords, I should like to thank the Government for what is probably a very good compromise on this question of copyright ownership by the commissioner of a photograph. It gives the photographer the right to receive a financial benefit from owning the copyright but allows the person who commissioned the photograph the control over its other reproduction. I think that the balance is right and thank the Government for this series of amendments.
Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran: My Lords, perhaps I may express briefly my gratitude to the noble Lord for his explanation of Clause 1 together with Amendment No. 1 and for speaking to the other nine amendments. At this late stage of the Bill I shall confine myself to remarking that some progress has been made and considerable concessions have been made by the Government. I shall leave the matter there. It shows once again that a great deal of work has been done by the officials behind the Front Bench. We are very grateful for the work that they have done at very short notice in order to bring forward so many amendments for our consideration.
Lord Beaverbrook: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran, for his observations. I should also like to draw to your Lordships' attention the very considerable amount of work that has been done by my officials since the last stage of the Bill and indeed throughout all its stages
610
as it has gone through your Lordships' House. Perhaps I may say to the noble Lord, Lord Williams, that there is no need for the person enjoying the new moral right to assert it. The assertion relates only to the paternity right in Clause 72.
On the question raised by the noble Lord, Lord Williams, about the expression "derogatory treatment", this indeed replaces the expression "unjustified modification", and does so in order to accord more closely with the wording of the Berne Convention. I shall be in a position to explain this more fully in a later debate in our discussion today. Perhaps at that stage the noble Lord will be able to hear what I have to say.
Finally, the noble Lord, Lord Williams, asked me whether a work of compilation such as a collage would be included. So far as it is an artistic work, it already falls within subsection (2)(a) of the new clause. This will certainly include a collage. We are not aware of any relevant types of thing which are not artistic works that ought to fall within the exception in subsection (2). I hope that those answers are helpful to the noble Lord.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 3 [Literary, dramatic and musical works]:
Lord Beaverbrook Lord Beaverbrook moved Amendment No. 2:
Page 2, line 22, leave out from ("otherwise") to end of line 23 and insert—
("(3) It is immaterial for the purposes of subsection (2) whether the work is recorded by or with the permission of the author; and where it is not recorded by the author, nothing in that subsection affects the question whether copyright subsists in the record as distinct from the work recorded.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, as I indicated at Report stage the question of copyright in oral works and reporters' copyright has given us some difficulty. The noble Lords, Lord Williams and Lord Morton, tabled an amendment at Report which, as I acknowledged at the time, seemed to provide an answer. They were kind enough not to press their amendment at that stage to give us time to draft our own amendment. This is the result.
It is, I believe, common ground that the author of a speech is the speaker and not the person who writes it down or records it in some other way. The Bill as now drafted makes that plain. What we are now concerned with is the position of the person recording the speech, in particular a person who writes it down and so has no sound recording or film copyright which he can claim.
The only authority on the matter antedates the 1911 Act and ascribed copyright to a reporter. Whether the courts would still follow the precedent of Walter v. Lane is uncertain. There is a difference between a secretary taking dictation and a reporter making notes at a political meeting. The courts would almost certainly not confer copyright on the secretary, but might confer copyright on the reporter. It is impossible to draw a clear boundary in legislation.
The present wording in the Bill might be construed as closing the door on the possibility of a reporter's copyright. The noble Lords, Lord Williams and Lord Morton, made the sensible suggestion—now embodied in this amendment—that the answer is to

611
leave the door ajar. The clause as amended would allow the possibility that the recorder may have a separate copyright, leaving it to the courts to decide in any given case whether he has expended sufficient skill and sufficient effort to merit copyright.
I believe that this is the best solution. I beg to move.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister. His recollection of events is absolutely accurate. We tabled an amendment to this effect and the noble Lord was kind enough to say that the Government found some merit in it. I am sure that the drafting of the government amendment is sharper than our own. We are very happy not to oppose this amendment.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
3.45 p.m.
Clause 4 [Artistic works]:
Lord Beaverbrook Lord Beaverbrook moved Amendment No. 3:
Page 2, leave out lines 38 to 41 and insert—
(""photograph" means a recording of light or other radiation on any medium on which an image is produced or from which an image may by any means be produced, and which is not part of a film;").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, of all the definitions appearing in this Bill it is perhaps the definition of "photograph" that has given rise to the most difficulties. The new definition we introduced at Report stage was, by general consent, a distinct improvement on its predecessor but there were some who felt that it was still not quite right. The noble Lord, Lord Brain, who is so expert in these matters, was among those who still had misgivings and has written to me with this comments, for which I am most grateful.
We have looked at this again and offer this revised definition which I hope will satisfy the noble Lord, Lord Brain, and others in your Lordships' House. There is a grammatical weakness in the present definition in that the concluding words,
"which is not a graphic work, a part of a film or a reprographic copy"
could be read as qualifying the word "image" and not the words "recording on any medium", so as to appear to be a proposition about photographs of graphic works. This drafting problem, taken with the observations of the noble Lord, Lord Brain, about whether the use of an ordinary photographic enlarger was a reprographic process set us thinking about the wisdom of excluding graphic works and reprographic copies from the concept of photograph.
The duration of copyright in a photograph is now the same as for all other artistic works, and with the removal of the distinction that previously existed we can find no case in which it is necessary to decide whether a particular work is a photograph or a graphic work. Either they are treated in exactly the same way, for example, in Clause 58(2) or it is immaterial if the photograph is also a graphic work, for example, in Clause 17(4).
A similar analysis in respect of reprographic copying gives a similar result. In none of the contexts where there is a reference to reprographic copying does it make any difference whether or not the
612
reprographic copy involves photography or the making of photographs.
On the other hand, the exclusion of reprographic copies from the definition can prove significant, and the noble Lord, Lord Brain, has provided examples where what is clearly a photograph could be taken out of the definition because it is a reprographic copy. It is rather odd to try to distinguish photography and reprography since the reprographic process is almost invariably a photographic one. The reason we attempted it was to ensure that a photocopy did not constitute a photograph and so have a copyright.
We now think that was misguided. It results in too much being excluded from the scope of the term "photograph". What should be excluded from copyright protection is unoriginal photographs, but that is already plain on the face of the Bill. Only original artistic works are given copyright protection under the terms of Clause 1(1)(a). A photocopy may be a photograph but does not constitute an original photograph. It does not need express provision to exclude it from the scope of the protection afforded by this Bill.
All this leaves us with a much simpler, technologically neutral definition. I believe that it meets the concerns that have been expressed at various stages in your Lordships' House. I beg to move.
Lord Brain: My Lords, I thank the Government for the very hard work that I know they have done. I believe that this definition is now right and I hope that it will be agreeable to your Lordships. I have left in an amendment about reprographic copying and photographs, but in view of what the Minister has said it is obvious that I shall not need to move it. I thank the noble Lord and other Members of the House who have co-operated in putting forward my arguments on this amendment that have not been as concise as they might.
Lord Kilbracken: My Lords, at an earlier stage I put down an amendment which sought to define a photographer. I did not take part in the debate on the amendment of the noble Lord which put in the new definition of photograph. However, I considered carefully his revised version today and again read the debate that took place on that occasion. I regret to say that I do not share the enthusiasm of the noble Lord, Lord Brain. In my opinion the version in the Bill at present is not acceptable, although, if anything, it is slightly more so than the new version proposed by the Minister.
I have four short points to make. First, on our understanding of "photograph", the definition seems quite suitable with regard to positive colour photography. Negative colour is almost never used commercially. However, when black and white photography is used, a negative is made and that presumably is the "recording of light … on any medium". From the negative a black and white print is produced and in the new version that is the image that is made from the recording of light. However, the definition of photograph refers to the recording of light and not to the image that is produced from it. Therefore it seems to me that an ordinary black and white photograph is not covered by the definition.

613
Secondly, if I take a drawing, a diagram or a map and transmit it by fax (facsimile) to a recipient, that drawing is reproduced by a recording of light. I do not know the technicalities, but it is a recording of light and therefore would seem to be under the definition of "photograph", which I do not believe it is meant to be.
Thirdly, if a photograph is transmitted by radio—which is the way photographs are normally sent from foreign countries or other parts of this country to a newspaper editor's desk in Fleet Street—a different technique is used and no light is involved in such a transmission. It would therefore seem to me that the print which appears on the picture editor's desk and which has arrived by radio—which is what he is buying; not the photograph which is still in Calcutta or wherever it may be—has not been produced in the way defined.
Finally, I want to make this point once again, because more and more, as I mentioned at an earlier stage, photographs are obtained from a video tape. That is becoming increasingly commonly done, as with all the photographs of the Belfast riots lately where a still is taken from a video tape. As I read it, that is specifically included by the words "not a part of the film", and therefore such pictures are not technically photographs although they are certainly treated as such in the newspaper business.
My proposal to include a definition of "photographer" in the Bill was thought to be unnecessary because we all know what a photographer is, though it can be argued about. In the case of a photograph it seems to me that we all know what is meant by "photograph" in the ordinary way and there is no need for a definition. It is only when unusual techniques involving something close to photographs are used that we have to define it. That is how it should be done in this case.
Lord McGregor of Durris: My Lords, it would be helpful if the Minister could explain why the points that the noble Lord has just raised are not covered by the phrase "or other radiation"?
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, we have had a great deal of difficulty with the definition of "photograph", as the noble Lord said in his introduction. Many of us are guided in this rather technical area by the noble Lord, Lord Brain, who has been kind enough to send me copies of correspondence he has had with the Government. I am also guided by my noble friend Lord Kilbracken. Therefore I have no particular points of substance.
I have one or two what I would call nit-picking points about the amendment. Do I understand that the amendment could cover a photograph which is not developed but is transmitted by computer? I think my noble friend raised the matter of transmittal of photographs and more and more photographs are transmitted by computer. Does the definition as proposed cover transparencies? Does the amendment as proposed cover stills from a film? Probably it does because it is part of a film, or possibly it does not because it is part of a video. I wonder whether the noble Lord can help us on that.
Lord Somers: My Lords, I am a little disturbed by one matter which my noble friend beside me has just told me. I asked him whether this provision would make it in order for a music teacher in a school to make photocopies of copyright music for teaching purposes. He tells me no, because it merely means that he is not making a photograph. But will the noble Lord make that clear?
Lord Beaverbrook: My Lords, I think it is probably as well that we do not have a fourth reading in your Lordships' House because no doubt we could extend matters so that it was as long as some earlier stages of the Bill. The short answer to the noble Lord, Lord Kilbracken, is that transmission of a drawing by the fax process may well be a photograph, but does that matter? As I have already said, it would not be original and would not enjoy copyright On the other hand, if a photograph is transmitted by radio the item received may not be a photograph, but that does not alter the character of what was sent, which will remain a photograph and will continue to be protected by copyright.
A black and white photograph is a copy made from a negative in which copyright subsists. Any copy of the black and white print will be an indirect copy of the copyright negative and so could be an infringement. Clause 16(3)(b) ensures that both direct copying from the negative and indirect copying from a print could constitute infringement.
The noble Lord, Lord Williams, made a point about photographs being taken from a video recording. The relevant point is that a photograph taken in this way is not an original work. It does not therefore merit its own copyright as a photograph. The act of taking the photograph may however infringe the copyright in the film if taken without authorisation. Continuing on with the noble Lord's point, the transmission of photographs of part of films will not alter the character of what is sent, which will thus continue to enjoy whatever copyright it is entitled to.
I did not quite understand the point that the noble Lord, Lord Somers, made, but I shall read what he has said in the Official Report to see whether there is anything to which I should like to respond in writing. I commend the amendment to the House.
Lord Kilbracken: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down will he explain—
Lord Beaverbrook: Order, this is Third Reading.
Lord Kilbracken: Could the noble Lord explain, how a print—
Noble Lords: Order!
Lord Kilbracken: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, I am asking him how it is possible for a negative to be a copy of a print when by definition what is black in a negative is white in a print and vice versa?
A noble Lord: A reverse copy.
Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone: The shape is the same!
Lord Beaverbrook: My Lords, we cannot go on backwards and forward on these matters at this stage. We have thrashed out the definition of a "photograph" pretty thoroughly over the last three months. I think we have arrived at the best solution. I commend the amendment to the House.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 6 [Broadcasts]:
Lord Beaverbrook Lord Beaverbrook moved Amendment No. 4:
Page 3, leave out lines 29 to 33 and insert—

("(a) the person responsible for the contents of the broadcast who makes the arrangements necessary for its transmission, and

(b) the person who transmits the broadcast, if he has responsibility to any extent for its contents.")

The noble Lord said: My Lords, with the leave of your Lordships I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 6 and 128. At Report stage we promised to come back with amendments of our own to provide that in the case of a broadcast on independent television both the relevant programme contractor and the IBA would qualify as persons "making the broadcast" and therefore as first owners of copyright in it.
Amendment No. 4 fulfils that undertaking. Amendment No. 6 provides that both shall be joint authors of the broadcast. This is because there will be no separate parts of a broadcast attributable to only one of them. The distinctness of the roles of making the programme and of transmitting it are not relevant here. Amendment No. 128 is consequential.
The Independent Television Association and the IBA have told us that they are satisfied with this solution. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 7 [Cable programmes]:
Lord Mottistone Lord Mottistone moved Amendment No. 5:
Page 4, leave out lines 13 to 19.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, at the Committee stage in reply to Amendment No. 37 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran, my noble friend said that if he withdrew his amendment the Government would have a further look at the question and come back with a government amendment if that proved necessary. Obviously he has not thought it necessary, but I suggest to him that it is.
Subsection (2)(a) is currently drafted so as to include not only electronic mail but the creation of on-line databases. These are such as are created, for example, by many doctors not only interrogating an expert system from their own surgeries but also entering their own diagnostic information into the database for others to use or for the system to alter its own responses to questions. It is clear that in that case—and there are many others—the owners of the database have a valuable work which they would not wish to be copied by or distributed to unauthorised users. I therefore ask my noble friend to consider whether Clause 7(2)(a) is necessary. If it is necessary,
616
will he consider amending it at a later stage of the Bill in order to take care of the kind of situation that I have raised? I beg to move.
4 p.m.
Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran: My Lords, I should like to thank the noble Lord, Lord Mottistone, for reminding me of an amendment that I had withdrawn. During my work over the past few days I had not noticed that the Government had decided to raise the matter and that I had withdrawn my amendment on that basis. I shall be interested to hear what the Minister has to say.
Lord Beaverbrook: My Lords, I believe that my noble friend Lord Mottistone does not really intend the complete omission of Clause 7(2)(a) from the Bill without any replacement. That would cause an ordinary telephone conference service to be a cable programme service, which is obviously not right. What my noble friend seeks is an indication of why the Government have done nothing about the matters which he mentions and what perhaps they intend to do about them in another place.
The noble Lord, Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran, moved an amendment as long ago as 30th November, on the very first day in Committee, to deal with what appeared to be a problem with electronic mailboxes. He withdrew that amendment upon my undertaking that we would have a further look at the question and come back with an amendment of our own if that proved to be necessary. We looked at the question and came to the conclusion that nothing was necessary, which is why there has been no amendment on the point in my name.
The reason for that conclusion is this. As most of your Lordships will know, an electronic mailbox system consists of a central collection of secure electronic data stores and peripheral terminals. A message can be sent to any of the central stores from any of the terminals, but the message can be sent from the store only to the terminal dedicated to that store. We accept that whether this falls within Clause 7(2)(a) or not is not entirely clear, but in our view this does not matter, because such a system does not seem to fall within the definition of cable programme service in Clause 7(1) at all.
The messages are not sent from the central store for reception at two or more places or for presentation to the public. This is so even when the same message is sent simultaneously to several stores for reception by a number of terminals. Each message sent from each store is distinct from, although identical to, the others, and is capable of reception at only one place.
I think that my noble friend also mentioned what are known as expert systems—electronic databases which both transmit information and receive it for adding to the database for future transmission. Here the question is much more difficult. It is related to the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Elvel, in our stand part debate on 30th November, about the reference in Clause 7(2)(a) to "an essential feature". His comment, reported in Hansard at col. 869, was:
"It is rare that you would have at the moment a cable service which is either entirely one, interactive, or entirely the other".

617
My response was that I thought that it was better that we considered that further as it is a complicated field.
I must say that nothing has happened in the past four months to suggest that I was wrong in that last remark. We have considered it further, not only internally but also in consultation with industrial and commercial interests, and we think that we now know the answer. Unfortunately, we were not ready with an answer in time for Report, and because no one else raised the matter at that stage it was pushed to the back of the queue. I am afraid that this is something which must now be dealt with in another place.
We think that the position is this. An expert system may be used actively or passively. As long as it is used passively, it ought to be a cable programme service, because it is then indistinguishable from an orthodox cable service carrying feature films, or a dial-a-disc service on the telephone. However, when used actively, or interactively as it is usually called, it ought not to be a cable programme service, because the passage of information back and forth between two terminals is indistinguishable from a telephone conversation or a video link.
We think that Clause 7(1)(a) as it stands has the result that the whole of a service which can be used both actively and passively will be excluded from being a cable programme service, because it is an essential feature that there may be sent, from each place of reception, material for reception by the person providing the service or others. That is not right. We need to say, I think, that the exception is of the whole service if the interactive element is an essential feature of the whole service, but that where the interactive element is an essential feature of only part of the service the exception is of only that part. As I say, this a very complicated field, and although we think that we have now found our way to the gate we were not able to do so in time to put down an amendment in your Lordships' House.
I hope that in the light of that explanation my noble friend will feel able to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Mottistone: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend for going into such tremendous detail in respect of this complicated problem. I apologise for the fact that we did not notice the need to table an amendment at Report in order to take the matter a step further. To that extent it is our fault rather than his.
I am grateful to him for realising that something must be done and for undertaking to take the issue through to the passage of the Bill in another place. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 10 [Works of joint authorship]:
Lord Beaverbrook Lord Beaverbrook moved Amendment No. 6:
Page 6, line 4, at end insert—
("(1A) A broadcast shall be treated as a work of joint authorship in any case where more than one person is to be taken as making the broadcast (see section 6(2)).").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I have already spoken to this amendment. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 12 [Duration of copyright in literary, dramatic, musical or artistic works]:
Lord Beaverbrook Lord Beaverbrook moved Amendment No. 7:
Page 6, line 36, leave out ("and") and insert ("but").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this is a purely drafting amendment. It is desirable to render the drafting of Clauses 12 and 13 consistent. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 17 [Infringement of copyright by copying]:
Lord Beaverbrook Lord Beaverbrook moved Amendment No. 8:
Page 8, line 24, leave out ("in that context") and insert ("and copies").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, with the leave of the House I shall speak to Amendments Nos. 8, 34, 35 and 146. These amendments are purely drafting amendments and follow up an undertaking I gave to the noble Lord, Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran, that we would look at the drafting of Clause 51. It will be apparent from Amendment No. 34 that we have been able to express the substance of the clause in a much simpler and more concise way. This clause is the very important clause which serves to take most industrial designs out of copyright.
As the amendment says, it is not to be an infringement of any copyright in a design document or model to make an article to the design or to copy such an article, except where the article itself is an artistic work or a typeface. I think that the effect of this will be perfectly plain, so I shall say only a few words about the references to a typeface and to the copying of articles.
Typefaces are included because they are the only things which are not artistic works under Clause 4 but which are still to be protected by copyright. Although typefaces are themselves not artistic works, the design of a typeface will almost invariably be an artistic work because it will start life as a drawing. We have already been through this on more than one occasion. Typefaces, however, were not included in the clause as originally drafted because in our view a typeface could never be an article made to the design of a typeface.
The reason for this apparently perverse view is that the design of a typeface is not a design of an article—that is a three-dimensional object—but rather of a two-dimensional impression made by an article. Thus, in our view Clause 51 would not take typefaces out of copyright in any event. However, in anticipation of the question, "If this is the case why do you not say so?" and in order to make Clause 51 as clear as possible, we have said so.
The copying of articles referred to in Amendment No. 34 clearly needs to be a reference to any copying, whether this is done by making further articles, or by making a design drawing or other document, or a design model. Amendment No. 8 is intended to make absolutely sure that this is the case, and as a result the effect is that once the copyright link has been broken by the making of an article no further copies in any form which are taken from that article, or indeed from a copy of the article or a copy of a copy of the article, and so on indefinitely, will infringe copyright.

619
It is because of this that we no longer need anything equivalent to paragraph (c) of the existing Clause 51(1).
Finally, I should perhaps just add that Amendments Nos. 35 and 146 merely take advantage of the simpler drafting to simplify the references to surface decoration. I should emphasise that the meaning and substance of Clause 51 have not changed. I hope your Lordships will agree that the drafting is much improved and clearer. I beg to move.
Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for taking up an amendment which I tabled earlier in these proceedings. From Clause 17 onwards we enter into the rights of a copyright owner and acts which are restricted by copyright. That is a very technical field. I am grateful to the Minister. The drafting by his officials is a great improvement on the original drafting with which I was involved.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 18 [Infringement by issue of copies to the public]:
Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran moved Amendment No. 9:
Page 8, line 43, at end insert ("or
(c) any holding or loan by a prescribed library or archive or information service of any work which has already been put into circulation by or on behalf of the copyright owner.")
The noble Lord said: My Lords, as I mentioned, we are now in an area of considerable difficulty. In Clause 18 we are dealing with infringement by issues of copies to the public. What is meant by issues of copies to the public is of great importance to the library system. I have been asked to put forward this amendment on behalf of the Library Association and many others associated with libraries.
I am advised that unless there is an amendment to Clause 18 on the lines I have put forward, serious damage to the work of libraries may arise. Therefore, I make no apology for spending a little time in explaining what this amendment is about. I understand that it has been discussed with officials and it may be that we shall have some helpful observations from the Minister.
Clause 18 deals with the references in this part of the Bill to the issue of public copies of a work. The issue relates to the act of first putting these copies into circulation. There follow two exceptions and I have proposed as a third,
"any holding of loan by a prescribed library or archive or information service of any work which has already been put into circulation by or on behalf of the copyright owner".
That must be an exception.
The purposes of the amendment are, first, to give positive protection from publisher control of library content with the withholding of licensing since the present Clause 18 gives only tacit protection; and, secondly, to provide a basis for any approach to the Copyright Tribunal about licence. It is the inception of the concept of licensing in conjunction with the rental right which makes this proposal essential.
I am advised that material could be kept out of libraries or away from certain research applications. That could seriously damage information services,
620
education and research. I am sure that the amendment could be drafted more adequately. It is however, an attempt to give what is needed in the new situation which has arisen; namely, a positive statement to protect the basic functions of libraries. I am advised that without such a provision, sale to libraries and even the reference of some materials could be refused, and donations could not be accepted. Over a period, that would seriously damage the work of libraries. I beg to move.
Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge: My Lords, the Marshalled List should read,
"any holding or loan".
not,
"any holding of loan",
should it not?
Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran: My Lords, I was reading from my original document. The noble Lord is quite right. The amendment should state,
"any holding or loan".
Lord Morton of Shuna: My Lords, I support the intention behind the amendment. It is obviously necessary that libraries should be able to have these documents. However, I question whether the amendment is wholly necessary and also whether paragraphs (a) and (b) are strictly necessary when the clause states:
"References in this Part to the issue to the public of copies of a work are … to the act of first putting those copies into circulation".
This amendment deals with the situation after that act. Therefore, I should have thought, reading it very strictly, it is unnecessary. However, I support the intention behind it.
4.15 p.m.
Lord Beaverbrook: My Lords, the amendment standing in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Lloyd, is I believe, based on a misunderstanding of the provisions of Clause 18. The intent of the amendment, as I see it, is to ensure that the copyright owner may not use copyright to control the normal activities of a library in holding or lending books, periodicals and other copyright material which have been put into public circulation.
Clause 18 does not give the copyright owner the power to control library activities in such a way. Only the copyright owner, or those acting with his consent, may first put copies into circulation but thereafter those copies may be circulated without the constraints of copyright, as paragraph (a) of subsection (2) makes clear. The only exception to this is those works covered by the new rental right set out in subsection (3). But the introduction of a rental right does not change the position with regard to free lending. I believe that that covers the noble Lord's point on licensing. Libraries, and indeed anyone else, are quite at liberty to hold copies of copyright material which have been issued to the public and lend them freely to others without any risk of copyright infringement.
Of course, it is possible for copyright owners, when putting copies into circulation, to impose contractual obligations on those to whom they sell the copies. For

621
example, it has long been a standard condition attaching to the sale of a book that it is not re-sold, hired or lent except in its original binding. But that has nothing to do with copyright. If a copyright owner will only sell a copy to a library on the condition it is not lent out, the library must of course abide by that condition or purchase a copy already in circulation where there is no contractual obligation. An amendment along the lines proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Lloyd, would not alter the position. Contractual obligations placed on purchasers of copies of copyright works, whether they be libraries or not, are not questions of copyright law.
I hope the noble Lord can withdraw his amendment given my assurance that the Bill as drafted gives copyright owners no powers over the subsequent holding or lending of copies once they have been put into circulation.
Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for that very full answer. I shall consult my advisers in relation to the matter to see if it should be pursued in another place.
Having regard to the observations of the noble Lord, Lord Morton of Shuna, about what is unnecessary, I should like to say this in relation to the Bill as a whole. Copyright is a very simple matter; in essence the theme is quite simple. The great difficulty is the application of it. There are so many and varied applications. In a Bill on copyright, one attempts to deal with every possible solution. I was brought up—and I was only reminded of it today—on a report by a committee over which the noble Lord, Lord Renton, sat in which he advised that Bills should be in more general terms and should not try to deal with every application as we have been attempting in this Bill. After that peroration, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Viscount Brentford Viscount Brentford moved Amendment No. 10:
Page 9, line 3, at end insert—
("(5) It is an act restricted by copyright for the owner of a sound recording or film which includes a musical work and any literary work associated with it to permit its hiring under subsection (3) without the licence of the owners of the copyright in those works."
The noble Viscount said: My Lords, in moving this amendment perhaps I may speak also to Amendment No. 33. At Report the Minister said that under the Government's proposal the rental right was to belong to the owners of rights in the sound recording or film and not to those whose works were embodied in the recording or film, and that that was to avoid putting on the retailer a burden of having to obtain authorisation from and make payments to more than one category of rights owners. These two amendments are intended to introduce a rental right exercisable by composers and their publishers in a way that does not impose any additional burden on the retailer.
My noble friend also indicated at Report his view that composers and others whose contributions were used should be able to negotiate a share of the new revenue when the arrangements for making the sound recording or film were made. I have already passed on to him a copy of the formal advice which had been given to my firm of solicitors; namely, that
622
contract does not offer a solution because copyright owners of the recorded works cannot, by contract, demand to exercise a right which the statute does not give them. Therefore, I hope that the noble Lord will consider my amendments favourably as they offer a solution to the two problems which he posed and at the same time remove an injustice inherent in the present wording of the clause. I beg to move.
Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran: My Lords, I have some difficulty in following the submission of the noble Viscount. It seems to me that the proposed amendment, far from removing an injustice, creates injustices. Certainly it is not necessary.
The amendment makes record company activity an infringement of copyright as against the publisher. Again it is in my view unnecessary because the rights of the publishers to remuneration follow the existing mechanical royalties agreement and any others which might replace it.
Record companies and publishers of course have very different interests in this matter. Record companies are keen to protect their business in order to ensure that rental does not undermine the retail sale. On the other hand, publishers seek to gain commercial advantages from rental. What appears to be ignored by the amendment is that the sale by a record company to a rental business is no different from the sale to a retailer and will entitle the music publishers to a mechanical royalty in any event. Music publishers will also receive a royalty based upon the prices charged for the rental business. Therefore, it seems to me that it is unnecessary to provide a rental royalty for the publishers, as that would make the collection and negotiation system for rental unduly complicated. The publishers' interests will be adequately catered for within the forum of internal industry agreements.
Lord Beaverbrook: My Lords, I find myself in agreement with the noble Lord, Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran, and therefore I am sorry to have to disappoint my noble friend. As my noble friend explained, these amendments are concerned with the rental right which your Lordships will recall was introduced into the Bill on Report. This new right is only conferred by the Bill on the owners of copyright in sound recordings, films and computer programs and not other copyright owners. The intent of the amendments in the name of my noble friend is to extend some of the benefits of the new right to other copyright owners, specifically the owners of copyright in musical works and associated lyrics incorporated in sound recordings and films.
As I explained when moving the amendments to introduce the rental right, we deliberately restricted the class of copyright owners who would be entitled to the right. If someone wants to hire out a record or film he should not have to obtain the permission of, and make separate payments to, more than a single category of rights owners. We believe it would be cumbersome and bureaucratic for the person hiring out a video to need a licence from all the owners of the many copyright works included in the video, as well as from the owner of the copyright of the film.
It is true that composers and lyricists provide an essential ingredient to a sound recording or film and

623
on that basis should be entitled to a share of the profit made from its exploitation. At present if a record company wants to record a particular piece of music it must negotiate with the composer for a licence. In negotiations over what is a reasonable fee for such a licence, both sides will take account of the value that the recording to be made will have in the market-place. If the only outlet is sale, only the potential sales market need be considered. But if under the provisions of the Bill exploitation through rental becomes significant, there seems no reason why the composer cannot negotiate for a slice of that cake as well.
My noble friend is concerned that without a specific right composers and other authors will have no power to extract contractual payment from the record and film producers. To that end he proposes a right which the composers and authors may exercise against them. At least I believe that is the intent. The amendment to Clause 18 speaks of a restricted act for the owner of a sound recording or film to hire it out, when I suspect that it is the owner of copyright in the sound recording or film that is intended.
I do not believe that we need these additional rights to safeguard the position of composers and authors. I am, however, prepared to consider whether we should introduce a provision requiring the tribunal when assessing the rental royalty to take account of payment made to the copyright owners of musical and literary works.
There is of course an analogous provision in Clause 124. The copyright owner in the musical or literary work in giving permission for his work to be recorded can reasonably expect a payment related to the benefit to the recording company through sale. If there is also a benefit through rental he can withhold his permission until he obtains a reasonable share of rental proceeds. The fact that he has no rental right is immaterial—he has no "sale right", if I can use that expression, but that causes no difficulties. An amendment along the lines I have indicated will remove any doubt that it is reasonable for music copyright owners to look for a share of the rental market in negotiations over licensing in the same way as they now do in respect of sales.
I hope with that explanation that my noble friend feels able to withdraw his amendments.
Viscount Brentford: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend for his agreement to look at one point.
I appreciate that he has not had long to consider the letter I wrote to him with formal advice but I am glad that further consideration will be given, and in the light of that I am happy to beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 24 [Secondary infringement: making, importing, possessing or dealing with article for making infringing copies]:
[Amendment No. 11 not moved.]
Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran moved Amendment No. 12:
After Clause 24, insert the following new clause:
("Secondary infringement: making importing or dealing with apparatus or device for making infringing copies.
.Copyright in works of a particular description is infringed by a person who, without the licence of the copyright owner—

(a) makes,

(b) has in his custody or under his control,

(c) imports into the United Kingdom, or

(d) sells or lets for hire, or offers or exposes for sale or hire,

any apparatus or device which is specifically designed or adapted, or the publication of any information which is calculated, to enable or assist persons to circumvent any technical devices incorporated in apparatus for playing or showing and designed to prevent or impede the making of infringing copies of works of that description.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, on Report I drew attention to the fact that a great deal of research had taken place into making,
"technical devices [to be] incorporated in apparatus for playing or showing and designed to prevent or impede the making of infringing copies of works of that description".
They are called anti-spoiler devices. This amendment is similar to the amendment I introduced on Report which intended to make it an offence and a breach of copyright to have in your possession, custody or control, to import into the United Kingdom or in any way deal with such devices.
The Minister said on 23rd February (reported in Hansard at col. 1140) after a long speech on the matter:
"If the noble Lords, Lord Willis and Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran, feel able to withdraw their amendments we will certainly give this question very serious consideration, with a view to returning with our own proposals to deal with anti-spoiler devices".
It may be entirely my fault but so far I have not been able to discover in the 150 or so amendments that have been tabled by the Government that they have returned to this important matter of dealing with anti-spoiler devices.
I fully realise, as I said earlier, how busy the noble Lord and his officials have been. I make no complaint but just draw this matter to the Minister's attention once again. I beg to move.
Lord Beaverbrook: My Lords, the noble Lord is correct that he has not found a government amendment similar to his own among those tabled in my name. As he said, he tabled an identical amendment on Report and at that time I indicated that we would give serious consideration to the question of a provision to deal with anti-spoiler devices. We are not yet in a position to bring forward our own proposals but I hope that we shall be able to produce something in another place.
We have looked at this proposal. It has not been left or put on the back-burner but, as with all these helpful ideas that have been suggested by your Lordships over the past few months, there are often some broader implications that need to be considered in depth. That can often take rather longer than expected.
I hope that, with my assurances that the matter has not been forgotten and that the Government are favourably inclined to the principle underlying the amendment, the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran: My Lords, I thank the Minister and at this late stage in the Bill I do not propose to raise any constitutional questions about matters put forward in this House being dealt with here and not left to the other place. However, in the circumstances and with the assurances given I agree that the matter should be left to the other place, and I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
4.30 p.m.
Clause 25 [Secondary infringement: permitting use of premises for infringing performance]:
Lord Beaverbrook Lord Beaverbrook moved Amendment No. 13:
Page 10, line 30, leave out subsection (1) and insert—
("(1) Where the copyright in a literary, dramatic or musical work is infringed by a performance at a place of public entertainment, any person who gave permission for that place to be used for the performance is also liable for the infringement unless when he gave permission he believed on reasonable grounds that the performance would not infringe copyright.")
The noble Lord said: My Lords, we greatly simplified the provisions of Clause 25 at Report stage. I believe that there was general agreement that we had it about right. However, there was some criticism of the drafting. In particular, the noble Lord, Lord Kilbracken, drew attention to what he felt was an incorrect use of tenses in the clause. I undertook to take the matter away and reconsider. In doing so, I also looked at Clause 26 and I have taken the opportunity of rendering it consistent with Clause 25. With that explanation, I beg to move Amendment No. 13.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 26 [Secondary infringement: provision of apparatus for infringing performance, &c.]:
Lord Beaverbrook Lord Beaverbrook moved Amendment No. 14:
Page 10, line 44, leave out ("also infringe the copyright") and insert ("are also liable for the infringement").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 13, I omitted to say that I would also be speaking to Amendments Nos. 14 and 15. I beg to move Amendment No. 14.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Beaverbrook Lord Beaverbrook moved Amendment No. 15:
Page 11, line 1, leave out subsections (2) to (4) and insert—
("(2) A person who supplied the apparatus, or any substantial part of it, is liable for the infringement if when he supplied the apparatus or part—

(a) he knew or had reason to believe that the apparatus was likely to be so used as to infringe copyright, or

(b) in the case of apparatus whose normal use involves a public performance, playing or showing, he did not believe on reasonable grounds that it would not be so used as to infringe copyright.

(3) An occupier of premises who gave permission for the apparatus to be brought onto the premises is liable for the infringement if when he gave permission he knew or had reason to believe that the apparatus was likely to be so used as to infringe copyright.
(4) A person who supplied a copy of a sound recording or film used to infringe copyright is liable for the infringement if when he supplied it he knew or had reason to believe that what he supplied, or a copy made directly or indirectly from it, was likely to be so used as to infringe copyright.").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 27 [Meaning of "infringing copy"]:
Lord Beaverbrook Lord Beaverbrook moved Amendment No. 16:
Page 11, line 40, leave out subsection (6) and insert—
("(6) Where copies which would otherwise be infringing copies are made in accordance with—

(a) section 32,35 or 36, or an order under section 132, (permitted copying for certain educational purposes), or

(b) section 59 (copying of artistic work for purpose of advertising it for sale),

and are dealt with for purposes other than those for which they were made, section 23(b), (c) and (d) (secondary infringement) and section 100(1)(d) and (e) (offences) apply as in relation to infringing copies.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 16 with leave I shall also speak to Amendment No. 41. The two amendments in this grouping are intended to meet the criticisms made by your Lordships when we introduced what is now Clause 59 into the Bill at Report stage. Your Lordships will recall that this clause was introduced to meet a potential difficulty facing auctioneers and art dealers who need to include a reproduction of a picture in their sales catalogues.
I think there was a general consensus that a problem existed and that that needed to be addressed. Concern was expressed that the exception was too widely drawn. In particular the noble Lords, Lord Williams and Lord Brain, made clear their misgivings and I promised to look into the points that they raised. Although the second amendment in the grouping, I should first like to refer to the amendment to Clause 59. That amendment has the effect of removing exhibitions from the ambit of the exception. As I told your Lordships' at Report stage on 23rd February—or more accurately in the early hours of 24th February—we had not received any request to provide an exception in respect of exhibitions but we felt that similar principles applied. However, the points raised by the noble Lord, Lord Brain, in particular, clearly showed that we had allowed our enthusiasm to get the better of us. The exception should be limited to sale, which is the only area where we have been informed of a difficulty. The removal of exhibitions from Clause 59 will mean that the exception will seldom, if ever, apply to posters, which were of particular concern to the noble Lord, Lord Williams.
The noble Lord, Lord Williams, also raised more fundamental questions about secondary dealings in catalogues which include reproductions of copyright artistic works. As I understood his argument, the exception as drafted was too wide because it allowed an art dealer to make copies of a work on the basis that they were to advertise a sale. In some circumstances copies made quite legitimately in this way could be circulated to the detriment of the artist or to the copyright owner without there being any redress.
We accept that the noble Lord, Lord Williams, has a point here. Leigitimate copies made under this exception should be treated in the same way as copies legitimately made under the various educational exceptions. Clause 27 already recognises that the sale of, or other dealing in, copies made for educational purposes under various exceptions in the Bill constitutes an abuse of the exceptions and provides

627
that such legitimately made copies are to be regarded as infringing copies for the purposes of some of the secondary infringements and offences. To minimise abuse of the exception in Clause 59, similar provision is needed and that is what this amendment provides. I beg to move Amendment No. 16.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 29 [Research and private study]:
The Earl of Stockton The Earl of Stockton moved Amendment No. 17:
Page 12, line 20, leave out ("research or")
The noble Earl said: My Lords, I am aware that your Lordships agreed to the government's Amendment No. 74 at Report stage, and I am therefore probably out of order in moving Amendment No. 17. Perhaps I may also have leave to speak to Amendment No. 18. I can think of no other strategy for finding out the views of the Government on the voluntary licensing scheme that I submitted in fulfilling the undertaking that I gave my noble friend the Minister at Report stage.
Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran: My Lords, may I presume to congratulate the noble Earl on the strategy that he has employed? The substance of Amendment No. 18 appeals to me and I would have supported it if it were possible to do so in any way in accordance with our procedures.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, we have had a good deal of debate on this matter, as the noble Earl quite rightly pointed out. On our side we have looked at the suggestion that the noble Earl made at Report stage about a possible general licensing scheme. Our advisers find considerable difficulty with this kind of scheme. If the Government are minded to consider further what the noble Earl has to say I believe that we on our side would find difficulty in going along with it.
Lord Beaverbrook: My Lords, my noble friend Lord Stockton and the noble Lord, Lord Williams, have reminded us of the debate we had at Report stage on the question of copying for commercial research. I explained the reasons for the Government's change of view on the question but did offer to consider, without commitment, any further evidence that my noble friend could bring to bear on the question.
Following our debate, my noble friend sent a draft licence for photocopying in industry to my noble friend, the Secretary of State. Copies were also sent to others of your Lordships and other interested parties in industry and the library community. We are currently looking at these proposals and look forward to hearing the comments of others. As I indicated at Report stage, nothing said to date has convinced us that industry would not be unduly burdened by the introduction of licensing in respect of copying that is presently allowed. It is too soon to come to a final view as to whether these new proposals will remove our concerns. Our early view is that they represent a step in the right direction, but I would not wish to give my noble friend great cause
628
for optimism. The early signs from the user side are far from favourable.
I do not propose to deal with the amendments in the name of my noble friend in any greater depth since he indicated to me privately that they were probing amendments to discover how far we have got with our consideration. I could not accept these particular amendments, for drafting reasons if not for any other. I trust that what I have said will satisfy my noble friend as to the state of play. Even if he finds the news discouraging perhaps he can withdraw these two amendments.
The Earl of Stockton: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord the Minister for his discouraging remarks; and I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 18 not moved.]
Viscount Caldecote Viscount Caldecote moved Amendment No. 19:
After Clause 29, insert the following new clause:
("Abstracts of articles.
.—(1) If an abstract of an article is published, dealing with the abstract for the purpose of disseminating scientific or technical information does not infringe any copyright in the abstract or in the article or in any publication in which the abstract or the article appeared, provided that such dealing is done by or on behalf of an authorised person and is accompanied by a sufficient acknowledgement.
(2) For the purpose of this section "an authorised person" means such scientific or technical persons or bodies as may be designated by order made by statutory instrument by the Secretary of State upon application made to him.
(3) Applications made pursuant to subsection (2) of this section shall be made in such manner as the Secretary of State shall direct and shall be accompanied by such information as he may reasonably require.").
The noble Viscount said: My Lords, the purpose of Amendment No. 19 is to remove uncertainty remaining in the Bill about fair dealing in relation to the publishing of abstracts—the so-called secondary publishing. These are very short resumés of the contents of articles.
I remind your Lordships that the principal abstracting service in the United Kingdom is the Institution of Electrical Engineers which is a nonprofit making charity. It deals with abstracts in the fields of physics, electrical and electronic engineering and related subjects. There is a smaller service operated in the field of materials by the Institute of Metals. The service provided by the Institution of Electrical Engineers has been going on since the end of the last century. Now about 240,000 abstracts are made each year and they are produced by an expert team of approximately 150 people.
These abstracts are of great value to scientists and engineers. There have been no complaints from publishers or authors. Nowadays the authors normally write the abstracts themselves to ensure that the principal points are brought out. Both the publishers and the authors like the publicity coming from the abstracts. As the Bill now stands, the problem arises in that there is serious doubt whether this abstracting service can continue without the threat of civil legal proceedings. This can be avoided only by seeking myriads of licences internationally as well as in this country, which is clearly impracticable. In passing, I thank the Minister for moving an

629
amendment on Report that removed any risk of criminal proceedings against those who publish abstracts.
There remains the problem of civil proceedings. In the debate in Committee I moved amendments to try to remove the problem. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Denning, agreed that there was a need to remove this uncertainty. The Government resisted further amendments moved on Report by my noble friend Lord Lucas of Chilworth on the grounds that publishers and authors must be further consulted about protecting their commercial rights and because of the difficulty of implementing the amendments proposed.
I fully recognise and accept the need to protect publishers' and authors' rights, but there is also a need to enable this very valuable service to continue in the public interest without the threat of legal proceedings. I believe that the amendment achieves both those objectives simply and effectively. I think that the Government are sympathetic to the problem and I hope that they will accept the amendment to tidy up the Bill in this respect. I beg to move.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, I think that we understand the purpose of the amendment, and we are sympathetic to that purpose. However, I wonder whether it may not be better covered and perhaps improved by inserting an expression such as "part of the work" in Clause 29. Clause 29 appears to allow fair dealing for the purposes of research or private study. I assume that the noble Viscount has in mind research or private study, not abstracts produced for purposes other than research or private study?
Viscount Caldecote: My Lords, there is a problem here. Abstracts are used by scientists and engineers working for employers to find out what has been done in the field in which they are working so as not to have to repeat the work in order to know where they can start. It may not be private study in that sense but for use in their work.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, I imagined that to be research or private study. Perhaps there is a definition with which I am unfamiliar that is not covered by the expression "research or private study". It is not that I am unsympathetic to this, but I am endeavouring to define the terms of the discussion. If what I say is true, the amendment may be unnecessary. On the other hand, if what I say is not true and the noble Viscount has purposes other than research or private study in mind that need to be included in the fair dealing exemption, then one must be sympathetic because that would be a genuine point.
Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran: My Lords, I support the amendment. Having had to deal with abstracts over more decades than I care to remember, I think that clarification is necessary.
I am not sure whether I understand the submission of the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Elvel. The amendment deals with a practical matter involved with abstracts disseminated for scientific or technical information other than mere research or mere private study. The purpose of a great many of these abstracts
630
is to help people in industry at all stages to get on and develop and do their work. The amendment has my support.
Viscount Caldecote: My Lords, with the leave of the House—
4.45 p.m.
Lord Beaverbrook: My Lords, I remind my noble friend that he has spoken twice already. Perhaps he can cover any other point when he winds up the debate.
This is a further variation of amendments tabled by my noble friend Lord Caldecote both in Committee and on Report. It would allow authorised persons to republish scientific and technical abstracts first published in periodicals along with the articles they summarise. Authorisation would be carried out by the Secretary of State, and the intention would be that he would only designate responsible persons such as the Institute of Electrical Engineers, which presently operates an abstracting service of this kind. With due respect to the learned societies that provide such services, I am not attracted by the amendment. It would put authorised societies in the position of being able to republish, and charge for the use of, someone else's work without payment.
I think that a much more acceptable approach was taken in my noble friend's amendment on Report. On that approach, republication of abstracts would be allowed without payment only if licences were not available from the copyright owner under a licensing scheme. This has the merit of freeing abstracting services from the need to get individual consents from owners of rights in the large number of source periodicals which they cover. But it also allows the rights owners to get appropriate royalties by setting up licensing schemes if they wish. This seems to achieve the right balance, and the Government intend to bring an amendment forward to this effect in another place. I hope that my noble friend can withdraw his amendment in the light of my remarks.
Viscount Caldecote: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for what he has said. We thought that we were helping him by simplifying the problem as he was unable to accept the amendments that were moved at an earlier stage. With the Minister's assurance than an amendment will be moved in another place, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran moved Amendment No. 20:
After Clause 30, insert the following new clause:
("Public Interest
. Copyright is not infringed by anything done in the public interest to disclose a matter of grave public concern or the existence of crime, fraud, abuse of authority, neglect in the performance of official duty or other misconduct.")
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I have been asked to move the amendment by the BBC. It raises the question of how far the public interest can be used as a defence in copyright. With the leave of the House, with this amendment I shall speak also to Amendment No. 124.
There is always a problem as to what constitutes public interest. In order to try to clarify the position, the amendment refers to:
"the existence of crime, fraud, abuse of authority, neglect in the performance of official duty of other misconduct".
It makes clear in this way that copyright is not involved in such actions.
Amendment No. 124, which is to be moved by the Government, deals with the question of public interest as a defence in copyright matters in a somewhat different way. The Government said on Report that there was no need for a statutory provision because defence exists at common law. The Government have at least moved forward with the intention to introduce a clause into the Bill. Amendment No. 124 says,
"Nothing in this Part affects any rule of law preventing or restricting the enforcement of copyright, on grounds of public interest or otherwise".
To include the words "or otherwise" in any Bill always causes trouble and to include merely the words "public interest" is inclined to give trouble. I have heard judges say in open court why Parliament should have left it to them to decide what is in the public interest in broad terms dealing with ordinary commercial matters.
With great humility, I presume to suggest that both amendments are intended to deal with the same mischief and that this amendment is in more practical terms than Amendment No. 124.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, the House will be aware that we on these Benches at many stages of the Bill have insisted that a public interest defence should be included. Indeed, we were reproved by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Denning, for our insistence in Committee. The noble and learned Lord pointed out that the courts were perfectly able to deal with the situation and that therefore we as amateurs should stop intervening in such matters.
Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran: My Lords, as I recall he did not refer to me as an amateur.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, I am sure that no one would refer to the noble Lord as an amateur. However, we feel, with considerable strength, that there should be some general public interest defence enshrined in the statute. If I had known that the noble Lord, Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran, was to table the amendment—I think he did so only recently, this morning—I should perhaps have considered adding our names to it, because, as I have already said, we feel strongly about it. I support the noble Lord's argument about the Government's Amendment No. 124.
We should like to see Amendment No. 124 with the words "or otherwise" left out. In our view that omission would be tantamount to accepting the amendment which we put forward in Committee, making public interest a full defence against infringement of copyright. However, having said that, if the Government insist upon including those words, we shall support a reasoned definition of "public interest" as a second-best measure, if I may
632
put it that way, and accordingly support the noble Lord, Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran. It is a matter about which we felt strongly during the earlier stages of the Bill's proceedings and we still do. Indeed, my colleagues in another place will continue to feel strongly about the matter. I hope very much that the Government, having moved perhaps half an inch, or even several inches, may decide to move just a couple of inches further to meet what I think are legitimate concerns on these Benches.
Lord Beaverbrook: My Lords, with leave I shall also speak to Amendment No. 124, which is tabled in my name. There has been much pressure on us, both in this Chamber and outside, to include in the Bill an express exception from copyright on public interest grounds. I have already explained both in Committee and on Report why we think that it would not be right to attempt to codify the existing case law on the point, and I do not propose to repeat that now, save to say that the amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran, shows exactly why codification would be unwise. Who is to say whether the circumstances listed in his amendment will remain the only matters in respect of which the courts, were they to retain a free hand, would be willing to accept that a defence of public interest should be available? I think that the new clause proposed by the noble Lord would be a great mistake.
However, we are persuaded that something should be said, and this I now propose to do by way of Amendment No. 124. It acknowledges the continuing effect of case law without attempting to codify it, thus leaving the law on this matter where it always has been, in the hands of the courts. It is not limited to public interest, although that is singled out for special mention, because other reasons sometimes emerge for denying the enforcement of copyright. The decision of this House in its judicial capacity in BL v. Armstrong is a case in point. My amendment may not go as far as some noble Lords would wish, but it is as far as we think that we should go. I hope that it will in due course satisfy your Lordships.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: My Lords, I should like to ask the noble Lord before he concludes his remarks whether he will agree that, as has been put to him both by the Opposition Front Bench and by my noble friend, Amendment No. 20 covers very nearly all the major issues of disquiet which have been expressed in the House. Will he further agree—perhaps he will not—that the amendment which he has tabled still gives cause for serious disquiet as far as many of us in the House are concerned as to whether it really addresses the issues which have previously been put to him?
Lord Lloyd of Hampstead: My Lords, I should like to express some sympathy for the Minister on that point. I think that there is a danger—
Lord Mottistone: My Lords, is it in order for anyone to speak after the Minister at this stage of the proceedings? I think not under the new rules.
Lord Beaverbrook: My Lords, normally it is customary on Third Reading and also at Report stage for the Minister to have the last word. However, with the leave of the House, I think I can deal quickly with the point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich. I believe that the key words in what he said are "very nearly". Throughout the Bill's proceedings it has been a matter of coming to a compromise position, which is very often a fine line between two sets of different interests. I cannot recall whether the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich, was present during our deliberations in Committee when the noble and learned Lord, Lord Denning, told us that he felt that any mention of "public interest" was unnecessary because the courts were quite able to resolve the matter. On the other hand, the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Elvel, among others, felt that it was indeed necessary to insert such a clause.
The Government have moved to try to find a balance between conflicting interests not only in this matter but in many other parts of the Bill. I believe that we have reached the right point in this matter; inevitably it will not suit everyone and there will be differences of opinion even among Peers on the same side of the House. However, at this stage I feel that we have the balance right. I hope that what I have said goes some way towards satisfying the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich.
Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran: My Lords, not only should the Minister be satisfying the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich, but as regards Amendment No. 20 I also have to be satisfied as to what procedures I should take having regard to what he said.
During the Bill's proceedings I have paid great attention to this important matter. When I presented the amendment to the House I was very brief. I did not go into the law involved, which I am sure would have satisfied the noble and learned Lord, Lord Denning; namely, that unless there was a clear statutory provision included in the Bill there would be a difficulty here. My amendment is directed to try to elaborate what the term "public interest" means in the context of today. The Minister's answer was, "Well, this might all alter in years to come; it may be different things. There may be no abuse of authority in the future and no neglect in the performance of official duty or other misconduct". He was in fact saying that there were other matters of public concern which I had not included and that those which I had mentioned would not be satisfactory.
Therefore, unless I can obtain from the Minister some suggestion that the amendment which he has tabled, Amendment No. 124, might be modified so as not to be worded in quite such broad terms, especially in regard to the words "public interest" and also "or otherwise", I cannot withdraw my amendment. However, if he can give some assurance in that connection and in effect withdraw his amendment, with an undertaking that he will represent it in a somewhat different form, I shall be clearer about the view which I ought to take. At present I am not satisfied with what he has said. Therefore, in those circumstances, I think I ought to take the opinion of the House.
4.59 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 20) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 88; Not-Contents, 132.

DIVISION NO. 1

CONTENTS

Airedale, L.

Listowel, E.

Ardwick, L.

Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe, B

Attlee, E.

Lloyd of Kilgerran, L.

Aylestone, L.

Longford, E.

Banks, L.

McGregor of Durris, L.

Basnett, L.

Mackie of Benshie, L.

Blease, L.

McNair, L.

Bonham-Carter, L.

Mais, L.

Brain, L.

Morton of Shuna, L.

Broadbridge, L.

Mulley, L.

Carmichael of Kelvingrove, L.

Murray of Epping Forest, L.

Carter, L.

Nicol, B. [Teller.]

Cledwyn of Penrhos, L.

Northfield, L.

Cocks of Hartcliffe, L.

Parry, L.

David, B.

Phillips, B.

Davies of Penrhys, L.

Pitt of Hampstead, L.

Dean of Beswick, L.

Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L.

Donaldson of Kingsbridge, L.

Prys-Davies, L.

Dormand of Easington, L.

Rathcreedan, L.

Elwyn-Jones, L.

Ritchie of Dundee, L.

Ewart-Biggs, B.

Rugby, L.

Ezra, L.

Russell, E.

Fitt, L.

Saltoun of Abernethy, Ly.

Foot, L.

Seear, B.

Galpern, L.

Shackleton, L.

Glenamara, L.

Shepherd, L.

Graham of Edmonton, L.

Stallard, L.

Grey, E.

Stedman, B.

Halsbury, E.

Stewart of Fulham, L.

Hampton, L.

Strabolgi, L.

Hanworth, V.

Taylor of Blackburn, L.

Harris of Greenwich, L. [Teller.]

Taylor of Gryfe, L.

Taylor of Mansfield, L.

Hatch of Lusby, L.

Tordoff, L.

Hooson, L.

Turner of Camden, B.

Hughes, L.

Underhill, L.

Hunt, L.

Wallace of Coslany, L.

Irving of Dartford, L.

Walston, L.

Jay, L.

Wells-Pestell, L.

Jeger, B.

Whaddon, L.

Jenkins of Hillhead, L.

Williams of Elvel, L.

Kilbracken, L.

Willis, L.

Kings Norton, L.

Winchilsea and Nottingham, E.

Kirkhill, L.

Leatherland, L.

Winstanley, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Airey of Abingdon, B.

Cameron of Lochbroom, L

Alexander of Tunis, E.

Campbell of Alloway, L.

Arran, E.

Campbell of Croy, L.

Auckland, L.

Carnegy of Lour, B.

Bauer, L.

Carnock, L.

Beaverbrook, L.

Carr of Hadley, L.

Belhaven and Stenton, L.

Coleraine, L.

Beloff, L.

Colnbrook, L.

Belstead, L.

Colwyn, L.

Bessborough, E,

Cork and Orrery, E.

Birdwood, L.

Cottesloe, L.

Blake, L.

Cox, B.

Blatch, B.

Craigavon, V.

Blyth, L.

Cranbrook, E.

Boyd-Carpenter, L.

Crickhowell, L.

Brabazon of Tara, L.

Cullen of Ashbourne, L.

Brentford, V.

Davidson, V. [Teller.]

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Denham, L. [Teller.]

Broxbourne, L.

Dilhorne, V.

Bruce-Gardyne, L.

Dundee, E.

Butterworth, L.

Eccles, V.

Caithness, E.

Ellenborough, L.

Caldecote, V.

Elles, B.

635

Faithfull, B.

Nelson, E.

Ferrers, E.

Newall, L.

Fortescue, E.

Norfolk, D.

Fraser of Kilmorack, L.

Orkney, E.

Gainford, L.

Orr-Ewing, L.

Gardner of Parkes, B.

Oxfuird, V.

Gisborough, L.

Pender, L.

Grantchester, L.

Pennock, L.

Hailsham of Saint Marylebone, L.

Penrhyn, L.

Peyton of Yeovil, L.

Hardinge of Penshurst, L.

Platt of Writtle, B.

Harrowby, E.

Porritt, L.

Harvington, L.

Renton, L.

Havers, L.

Renwick, L.

Hayter, L.

Rodney, L.

Hesketh, L.

Romney, E.

Hives, L.

St. Aldwyn, E.

Holderness, L.

Sempill, Ly.

Hooper, B.

Sharples, B.

Hylton-Foster, B.

Skelmersdale, L.

Joseph, L.

Somerset, D.

Kaberry of Adel, L.

Stockton, E.

Kimberley, E.

Stodart of Leaston, L.

Kinloss, Ly.

Strathcarron, L.

Kitchener, E.

Strathspey, L.

Lane-Fox, B.

Sudeley, L.

Lauderdale, E.

Swansea, L.

Lawrence, L.

Terrington, L.

Layton, L.

Teviot, L.

Lloyd of Hampstead, L.

Thomas of Gwydir, L.

Long, V.

Thorneycroft, L.

Lucas of Chilworth, L.

Thurlow, L.

McFadzean, L.

Trafford, L.

Mackay of Clashfern, L.

Trefgarne, L.

Macleod of Borve, B.

Trumpington, B.

Malmesbury, E.

Ullswater, V.

Margadale, L.

Vaux of Harrowden, L.

Merrivale, L.

Ward of Witley, V.

Mersey, V.

Westbury, L.

Milverton, L.

Whitelaw, V.

Monk Bretton, L.

Wise, L.

Montgomery of Alamein, V.

Young, B.

Mottistone, L.

Zouche of Haryngworth, L

Munster, E.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
5.8 p.m.
Clause 38 [Copying by librarians: articles in periodicals]:
Lord Beaverbrook Lord Beaverbrook moved Amendment No. 21:
Page 15, line 19, leave out ("thereby").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, for the convenience of the House I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 24, 27 and 28. These are purely drafting amendments which have the merit of reducing the overall length of the Bill by four words. I am sure that the removal of unnecessary words is always to be welcomed. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran moved Amendment No. 22:
Page 15, line 31, at end insert—
("(3) Prescribed libraries may also copy as follows—

(a) in order to build special information files including extracts or abstracts of works")

(b) libraries of educational establishments may make one copy of an article in a periodical for loan.").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, I have been advised in this matter by the Library Association. Clause 38 deals with copying by librarians of articles
636
in periodicals. The purpose of my amendment is to give further powers to prescribed libraries so that,
"Prescribed libraries may also copy as follows—

(a) in order to build special information files including extracts or abstracts of works")

(b) libraries of educational establishments may make one copy of an article in a periodical for loan".

The Bill at present contains no provision for a prescribed library—and I emphasise that I am dealing with prescribed libraries—to copy for its own purposes except in Clause 42, covering archival preservation. The kind of copying in the first part of my amendment, that is to say copying:
"to build special information files including extracts or abstracts of works",
is essential for all libraries as part of the information service. Indeed, in some contexts it can itself have archival intent, such as photocopies instead of clippings as part of a local history collection. In respect of making copies for information file purposes—assuming of course no publication without permission in advance—a library's authority has long needed clarification.
In respect of the second part of my amendment which deals with libraries of educational establishments being able to make one copy of an article in a periodical for loan, I am advised that this is an essential corollary to Clause 42 of the Bill. The purpose is to preserve originals of selected articles against damage and loss during peak demand by students requiring loan access. I am advised, that it is not customary for academic libraries to lend originals of periodicals. The amendment is confined to academic libraries, confined to single copies for loan and confined to periodicals. I beg to move.
The Earl of Stockton: My Lords, I am concerned about the second part of the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran. If a library is to make one copy which then goes out into circulation and is subsequently destroyed, is the library then permitted to make one more copy which goes out into circulation, disappears or is destroyed and one more copy after that? I feel that this is the thin end of what could be quite a large wedge. Perhaps I may ask my noble friend whether he has had any further thoughts on that.
Lord Beaverbrook: My Lords, if I may say so, this amendment was tabled very late and relates, at least in part, to matters which have not previously been debated during the long and arduous passage of this Bill through your Lordships' House. In these circumstances it may not greatly surprise the noble Lord, Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran, to learn that I do not approach these amendments with great sympathy.
Clauses 38 to 43 provide a regime for copying in libraries which meets the needs of students and the operational requirements of libraries and archives, while safeguarding the interests of copyright owners. Clauses 38 and 39 will enable the student to obtain copies. Clause 41 allows libraries to make copies for supply to other libraries. The new exception in Clause 42 goes most, if not all the way to meeting the perceived need expressed in paragraph (b) of the amendment. It will allow libraries to preserve material they hold so that copies, rather than

637
originals, may be made for general day-to-day use in the library. Clause 43 provides for copying of unpublished works.
As for educational establishments, the various provisions in Clauses 32 to 36 provide further exceptions to copyright, all aimed at assisting the education process; and there are the provisions about licence schemes in Clauses 128 to 132. Photocopying is done under licence in schools in England and Wales and I understand that a pilot scheme has been set up for universities. It seems to me that there is very little copying which students and educationists might reasonably wish to do which cannot be done, either under licence or under the terms of the various exceptions that I have mentioned.
What we have to guard against is the notion that the operation of libraries or education is a cause which justifies overriding copyright owners' legitimate interests in all cases and at all times. I believe the package in the Bill has shifted the balance from the position in the 1956 Act towards educational interests and has made some small but useful improvements for libraries. I do not think we should go further. I hope that the noble Lord will be able to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran: My Lords, I am very grateful to the noble Lord for what he said about the context of the amendment. I was sorry that he should have prefaced his remarks by mentioning the lateness of the tabling of the amendment. I apologise for being late in setting it down and causing his officials some difficulty. However I am tempted to refer to the Government's technological difficulties in getting copies of the Bill filed and their difficulties in finding out what amendments they had to put down, having regard to the undertakings which they had given in previous debates. In addition, when they had put forward all these amendments they found that there were at least 15 to 20 which had to be substituted for them. My advisers—and I shall refer to this later, if so tempted—have found it very difficult to get the necessary papers and people together to give advice.
However, having listened to the advice and comments of the noble Lord on this amendment I shall ask my advisers whether they will be proceeding with it at a later stage. In those circumstances, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave withdrawn.
Clause 39 [Copying by librarians: parts of published works]:
5.15 p.m.
Lord Beaverbrook Lord Beaverbrook moved Amendment No. 23:
Page 15, line 33, leave out ("a copy of part of a published edition") and insert ("from a published edition a copy of part").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, Clause 39 as presently drafted could be construed as allowing the copying of a whole work provided it only formed part of a published edition containing other works as well. The amendment will remove this possible interpretation and ensure that only parts of works can be copied under the exception contained in
638
Clause 39. That is the position under the 1956 Act. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Beaverbrook Lord Beaverbrook moved Amendment No. 24:
Page 15, line 35, leave out ("thereby").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I have already spoken to this amendment. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Beaverbrook Lord Beaverbrook moved Amendment No. 25:
Page 16, line I, leave out subsection (3).
The noble Lord said: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Elvel, moved an identical amendment in Committee on 8th December. In doing so he described it as a probing amendment, but said that he felt subsection (3) put too heavy an onus on the librarian. I undertook to consider that point and come back with a firm view at a later stage. As I said in Committee, Clause 39(3) restates the provisions of the 1956 Act which have not come in for great criticism. I do not think that we can necessarily infer that this is because the provision causes no difficulties. It would seem that at least some librarians have only become aware of this provision of the 1956 Act as a result of seeing it restated in Clause 39. It may well be that there have been few difficulties because observance has not been all that it might have been.
Be that as it may, the question we have to ask ourselves is whether this is a reasonable burden to place on librarians. We have come to the conclusion that the answer is no. The extra protection subsection (3) gives copyright owners is small compared with the hurdle placed in the way of the librarian. As the noble Lord, Lord Williams, put it, it seems rather hard on the librarian if, every time he is required to make a copy, he has to ask himself, "Could I by reasonable inquiry ascertain the name and address of the person entitled to authorise the making of a copy?"
It must be remembered that Clause 39 only allows the librarian to make a single copy of a reasonable proportion of a work for research or private study purposes. Much of that copying could equally be carried out under the terms of the fair dealing exception in Clause 29. Thus in many cases, the consent of the copyright owner would not be needed.
It therefore seems undesirable to require librarians to attempt to track down the copyright owner to seek permission which in many cases is not needed. Furthermore, the majority of copying by librarians is of complete articles from periodicals and that is permitted under Clause 38. Even though Clause 38 is concerned with complete works, it is not felt necessary in that context to impose any requirement to seek out the copyright owner. It is difficult to see why the situation should be different in Clause 39 which is concerned only with parts of works. I believe that the provisions of subsection (2) of Clause 39, taken in conjunction with Clauses 37 and 40, provide sufficient safeguard for copyright owners so that subsection (3) is an unnecessary and bureaucratic gloss. I beg to move.
The Earl of Stockton: My Lords, I am sorry to have to disagree with my noble friend in this case. I think that he should look again at the decision to drop the subsection. The publishing industry is greatly alarmed to see that the Government are proposing to delete it and thereby permit widespread copying of books by libraries.
Successive departmental inquiries by Gregory and Whitford have held that this concession to libraries is not justified. The present rule is that libraries may only copy parts of books if they are unable to obtain the name of the copyright owner to whom they should apply for permission. It is this precondition which the Government are now proposing to delete and so provide a general permission instead of a limited one.
The existing precondition is surely a reasonable and necessary one. If a person using a book wants to photocopy a small part for ease of retention or handling he may usually do so as fair dealing. To extend this by permitting libraries to make a copy as a substitute for use of the book is a different matter entirely and goes to the root of copyright—the right to make copies—and also to the viability of publishing the book.
There is also the danger that the new provision would open up libraries to becoming supply centres for computerised works which could be regarded as published editions, so destroying the possibility of a sensible investment in them. A single copy of a part of a book may not sound very much to your Lordships, but once permitted it expands rapidly and it is difficult or impossible to prevent abuse as evidence of repeated or regular copying is almost impossible to obtain.
The result is that libraries soon provide copies of substantial extracts for people wanting to use the books instead of purchasing the required number of copies. That is economical but perhaps not a fair reward for the owner of the copyright of the book or the originator. There is not even a need for such a development. The Copyright Licensing Agency is willing to grant licences to make copies of parts of books on reasonable terms, and as libraries anyway have to require a form to be completed and a payment to be made for the copying little or no extra administration is involved in charging a royalty for the copyrighter. I am very unhappy about this and I hope that the Minister will reconsider.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, I am afraid that I have to take a diametrically opposite view to that of the noble Earl, Lord Stockton, as I am sure he will understand. I do so if only to preserve my own consistency in the course of further debates on this Bill.
I believe that as the Bill has gone forward at its various stages we have got the position of the librarian a little clearer and more sensible. We started off in the Bill with a rather rigorous position for a librarian, which was that by acting in good faith he could still be caught. As we have gone forward and the Government have accepted the thrust of a number of amendments, the librarian no longer has the onus laid on him or her to ascertain various things or to make sure of various things before copies are made.
640
I believe that the Government are correct in their current assessment of the situation. I support Amendment No. 25 and I very much hope that the noble Earl will not wish to seek the opinion of the House on this amendment because if he does we will support the Government.
Lord Beaverbrook: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Williams. I shall briefly reply to the point made by my noble friend Lord Stockton. I accept that publishers receive requests from librarians for consent to copy under the equivalent provisions of the 1956 Act. I understand that normally this consent is given without payment. This, if I may say so, appears to support my view that doing away with subsection (3) will not harm the publishing industry. Publishers will not be deprived of any revenue which they now receive, and they, as well as the libraries, will be relieved of the administrative burden of dealing with such requests. For that reason and for the reasons that I stated earlier I commend Amendment No. 25 to the House.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 40 [Restriction on production of multiple copies of the same material]:
Lord Beaverbrook Lord Beaverbrook moved Amendment No. 26:
Page 16, line 8, leave out ("or a person acting on his behalf").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this is a purely drafting amendment that we missed at an earlier stage. Your Lordships will see that Clause 37(6) renders the phrase,
"a person acting on his behalf"
in Clause 40 superfluous. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 41 [Copying by librarians: supply of copies to other libraries]:
Lord Beaverbrook Lord Beaverbrook moved Amendment No. 27:
Page 16, line 23, leave out ("thereby").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I have already spoken to this amendment. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 42 [Copying by librarians or archivists: replacement copies of works]:
Lord Beaverbrook Lord Beaverbrook moved Amendment No. 28:
Page 16, line 38, leave out ("thereby").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I have already spoken to this amendment, I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 46 [Royal Commissions and statutory inquiries]:
Lord Beaverbrook Lord Beaverbrook moved Amendment No. 29:
Page 17, line 36, after second ("a") insert ("published").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 29, with leave I shall speak also to Amendment No. 30. The first amendment to Clause 46 will make the clause again consistent with the analogous provisions in Clause 45 which your Lordships may recall we amended on Report.
The second amendment in my name seeks to clarify the position of bodies such as the Office of Fair Trading and others which carry out investigations without being able to take evidence on oath. Obviously such bodies should not be obstructed by copyright considerations any more than the courts or a more obviously recognised statutory inquiry.
It is not altogether clear whether investigations of the type carried out by the OFT can be called an inquiry, but use of the word "investigation" removes all doubt. I should point out that investigative bodies like the Monopolies and Mergers Commission which can take evidence on oath already fall within Clause 45 because of the breadth of the definition of the expression "judicial proceedings" in Clause 165. So for them the result of the amendment would only be to clarify the position of their reports as provided for in Clause 46(3) rather than of their proceedings as well. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Beaverbrook Lord Beaverbrook moved Amendment No. 30:
Page 18, line 1, after ("held") insert ("or investigation conducted").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I have just spoken to this amendment. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 48 [Material communicated to the Crown in the course of public business]:
Lord Beaverbrook Lord Beaverbrook moved Amendment No. 31:
Page 19, line 2, leave out from ("purpose,") to second ("the") in line 3 and insert ("which could reasonably have been anticipated by").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, with the leave of your Lordships I shall speak also to Amendment No. 32. We discussed Clause 48 on Report in the context of an amendment of my noble friend Lord Mottistone to delete the words "or any related purpose" from subsection (2). I explained on Report why the phrase could not be deleted. For example, material submitted to a departmental committee is communicated for the purpose of persuading the committee of some particular case but the committee should not be precluded from copying that material for inclusion in its report.
In circumstances such as those I have in mind, I believe it would normally be within the contemplation of the person writing to the committee that his work would be copied and perhaps included in the committee's report. Since we accept the criticism that the phrase complained of by my noble friend Lord Mottistone is potentially too wide, we are proposing that the Crown's freedom to use material communicated to it is confined to purposes which could reasonably have been anticipated by the copyright owner.
The Crown's freedom of action under this clause can be further limited by agreement with the copyright owner, a provision now given its own
642
subsection, and the clause as originally drafted and as amended does not give the Crown freedom to breach any trust or confidence. Clause 158 sees to that. The amendment further limits what the Crown may do. I do not believe the Crown would have abused the provision as drafted but this amendment will limit the potential for abuse and, I hope, satisfy my noble friend Lord Mottistone. Although I do not believe the amendment will make much difference in practice I see merit in stating on the face of the statute that the Crown cannot deal unreasonably with other people's works. I beg to move.
Lord Mottistone: My Lords, I thank my noble friend very much for going some way towards what I was seeking to achieve. I do not think that he has gone quite as far as I was hoping, but it is certainly a move in the right direction and I thank him for it.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Mottistone, that the Government have gone some way towards what he wished to achieve. I have the difficulty that when the Government move in certain circumstances, half-way they tend to create problems for themselves by adopting a half-way position. I feel that the Government may be creating a problem for themselves by including the words
"which could reasonably have been anticipated by".
I assume, in the pursuit of good English, that "anticipated" means "expected" in that context. I hope that at some stage the draftsman may be persuaded to use proper English. The word "anticipate" means something quite different.
Nevertheless, assuming that the words mean "which could reasonably have been expected", I wonder what the copyright owner could reasonably be deemed to expect. Perhaps the noble Lord will be able to clarify that point and tell the House the circumstances he has in mind which the amendment covers. The Crown can argue perfectly properly that for the purposes for which the work was communicated to it, it is not an infringement of copyright if it issues copies of the work to the public. That is quite clear. It is not entirely clear that the Crown can argue successfully that a copyright owner should have been able to expect that the Crown would have used it in such and such a way. I shall be grateful if the noble Lord can give some further explanation of exactly what he has in mind.
5.30 p.m.
Lord Beaverbrook: My Lords, I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Williams, when he says that a halfway house can sometimes be a difficult position. As I said earlier to the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich, the Government find themselves in the position of having to try to establish a fair compromise on a great number of issues in the Bill.
The intention of the amendment is to enable any person, body or company which submits evidence to a government body to be sure that the evidence or submission will not be unfairly used but will be used in connection with a purpose for which it was originally intended by the user. The example I used earlier is a case in point. A person providing material

643
to a committee can reasonably anticipate that the material will be published. Where the evidence is provided to a government body or department, very often a report is likely to flow from the inquiry or from the department which is looking into some matter. Therefore, the Crown should not be limited in using the evidence in a report.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Beaverbrook Lord Beaverbrook moved Amendment No. 32:
Page 19, line 9, at end insert—
("(5) This section has effect subject to any agreement to the contrary between the Crown and the copyright owner.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I have already spoken to Amendment No. 32. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 50 [Acts done under statutory authority]:
Lord Beaverbrook Lord Beaverbrook moved Amendment No. 33:
Page 19, line 16, leave out subsection (1) and insert—
("(1) Where the doing of a particular act is specifically authorised by an Act of Parliament, whenever passed, then, unless the Act provides otherwise, the doing of that act does not infringe copyright.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, with permission I shall also speak to Amendment No. 207. The amendments address a possible defect in Clause 50 which has been pointed out to us by the Music Copyright Reform Group. The exception in Clause 50 is intended to apply only when some particular act is authorised by an Act of Parliament. An example in Section 19 of the Companies Act 1985 which requires a company to provide a copy of its memorandum and articles of association to any member who requires it. The copyright in those documents will not necessarily belong to the company itself.
It has been pointed out that the exception as drafted could possibly be taken to exempt from copyright control some whole class of activity which is authorised by an Act of Parliament—for example, broadcasting by independent television authorised by the Broadcasting Acts. That is certainly not our intention. In so far as it is a real possibility, it should be prevented. The amendments are intended to put the matter beyond doubt, both in relation to Clause 50 and the corresponding exception in Schedule 2. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 51 [Design documents and models]:
Lord Beaverbrook Lord Beaverbrook moved Amendment No. 34:
Page 19, line 23, leave out subsection (1) and insert—
("(1) It is not an infringement of any copyright in a design document or model recording or embodying a design for anything other than an artistic work of a typeface to make an article to the design or to copy an article made to the design.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I have already spoken to the amendment. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Beaverbrook Lord Beaverbrook moved Amendment No. 35:
Page 19, line 37, leave out ("decoration applied to the surface of the article") and insert ("surface decoration").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I have already spoken to the amendment. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Mottistone Lord Mottistone moved Amendment No. 36:
Page 19, line 38, after ("article") insert (", or those features of shape, configuration, pattern or ornament capable of registration in respect of an article pursuant to the Registered Designs Act 1949").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, the proposed amendment will have the effect of allowing copyright to subsist in aspects of design capable of registration under the Registered Designs Act 1949. As such, all the exceptions contained in that Act as to what can and cannot be protected will apply to copyright in industrial applied aesthetic designs. It has been said that design right is primarily intended for the protection of functional designs and that the Registered Designs Act is primarily intended for the protection of aesthetic designs. However, use of the Registered Designs Act as a means of protection requires industry to file design applications. That can be an expensive process requiring the use of skilled professional practitioners.
The Design Copyright Act 1968 was intended to relieve industry of the burden of applying for registered design when copyright would suit its needs as well. That situation has not changed. The proposed amendment permits dual protection by copyright and registered designs in industrial applied aesthetic designs. It does not give industry greater protection than that provided by the Registered Designs Act. However, it allows industry to opt for a lesser and cheaper protection where appropriate. The amendment is necessary because of the present working of subsection (3)(d) of Clause 195. I beg to move.
Lord Beaverbrook: My Lords, the amendment standing in the name of my noble friend is certainly not without merit. As he has indicated, an industrially applied aesthetic design may be registered under the Registered Designs Act. Under the present law it also enjoys the weaker protection of copyright even if it is not registered. Why, my noble friend asks, should we remove that weaker protection if the designer chooses not to register? He says that the problem with copyright protection for the design of articles concerns functional and not aesthetic designs and that Clause 51 should be limited in its effect to functional, non-aesthetic designs.
That view is not unfamiliar to us. Indeed, it is a view which we have constantly sought to take into account in the long gestation of the Bill. It is therefore with some reluctance that I say to my noble friend that we cannot accept the amendment. The principal difficulty is that it introduces into the law of copyright, which is a non-registrable right, a test which is appropriate only to a registrable right. The test is, to use the words set out in Clause 245 of the Bill, whether the design features in question are features which appeal to and are judged by the eye, not including features dictated solely by function. There is also the element of materiality, for which I am proposing a drafting improvement in Amendment No. 177.

645
The test is fairly easily applied if an application is made for registration of a design. The design is scrutinised by the staff of the designs registry in the Patent Office. There is the opportunity for appeal to a court against an adverse decision and the opportunity is always there for those who think that a design should not have been registered to apply for cancellation or rectification of the registration. In other words, the world can always readily ascertain the status of a design under the Registered Designs Act.
The problem with my noble friend's amendment, however, is that the same test would have to be applied without the benefit of the provisions in the Registered Designs Act. Someone wishing to exploit the design of the shape or configuration of an article which has been on the market for a few years would have to ask himself whether the design would have been registrable had the designer bothered to apply, but without any help from the presence or absence of the design on the register or the possibility of applying to the registrar for cancellation of the registration if he thinks that it was wrongly obtained.
In some cases the answer will be obvious, but in other cases he will have to guess; and if he guesses wrong, he could be sued for damages; or, if his wrong guess was in the other direction, he would decide not to exploit something which he was in fact free to exploit. The only way in which he could be sure of his position—unless of course the owner of the copyright was prepared to concede that the design was not capable of protection under the Registered Designs Act —would be to sue the copyright owner for a declaration, a very heavy-handed and expensive way of sorting things out, and one which is in any event no use if the copyright owner cannot be found. We think that these difficulties outweigh the benefit of my noble friend's amendment.
It might be said that the question of registrability already has to be addressed under Section 10 of the Copyright Act 1956. This is true, but that is the very thing that is wrong with Section 10, the very defect inadvertently introduced by the Design Copyright Act 1968 which we are now seeking to put right. This is precisely why the very next clause in the Bill, Clause 52, which replaces Section 10, does not mention registrability.
Finally, there is a lesser but not insignificant objection to my noble friend's amendment. It would produce the result that if articles, the shape or configuration of which was aesthetic, were not put on the market so as to cause the period of 25 years in Clause 52 to start running, the design in question would remain protected for the full term of copyright of life plus 50 years. That is too long. Unless the article itself is an artistic work such as a sculpture, we think that the design of its shape or configuration should be kept out of the public domain for no longer than 25 years at the most. I should add that this is not a mere drafting defect in my noble friend's amendment; it is a flaw in the whole concept.
My noble friend said that the situation has not changed since the Design Copyright Act 1968. I am afraid that I disagree. Before that Act there was no protection for an unregistered registrable design. Under the Bill, all designs will at least get the
646
protection of design right in Part III. The designer of aesthetic articles has a choice. He may register his design and get 25 years' protection; or he may chose to rely on the unregistered design right in Part III of this Bill and get between 10 and 15 years' protection. We think that this is fair. My noble friend's amendment goes too far, and I must resist it.
Lord Mottistone: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend for his careful comments on the amendment. He has given me and my advisers a great deal of food for thought. I would not be at all surprised if they come back at some stage in another place. What is important is that my noble friend and his advisers have taken great care over the matter. I am grateful to them for that. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 54 [Use of typeface in ordinary course of printing]:
Lord Beaverbrook Lord Beaverbrook moved Amendment No. 37:
Page 20, line 39, leave out ("or import").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving this amendment I shall speak also, with the leave of the House, to Amendment No. 38. An identical amendment to omit the words "or import" was moved by my noble friend Lord Rodney at the Report stage. Unfortunately, the amendment was tabled too late for us to give the proposal serious consideration at that stage and my noble friend kindly withdrew his amendment to give us the opportunity to look into the point.
As I explained at the Report stage, the philosophy underlying subsection (1) of Clause 54 is that the owner of copyright in the design of a typeface should have the exclusive right to control its reproduction and dealings in infringing copies, but should not be able to control the use of his typeface in normal printing processes. It seems right to allow a printer to continue to possess and use a typeface, even if it is an infringing copy he has innocently acquired. In such a case the copyright owner has a right of action against the dealer who sold the printer the infringing copy.
As the clause now stands, the printer can import an infringing copy for his own use and the copyright owner can take no action. He can act against an importer only if he imports for onward sale. It seems wrong that the copyright owner could find himself with no one to sue in respect of infringing copies. It may be fair that the printer should not be liable if someone else was responsible for introducing the infringing typeface into the United Kingdom, but not if he himself did so. We have concluded that my noble friend Lord Rodney was right in proposing the deletion of "import" from Clause 54(1)(b).
The second amendment in this grouping is a consequential amendment that we missed at Report stage. Your Lordships may recall that we added possession to the list of secondary infringements on Clause 24 and a corresponding amendment should have been made here, in Clause 54. We now propose to correct that oversight. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
5.45 p.m.
Lord Beaverbrook Lord Beaverbrook moved Amendment No. 38:
Page 21, line 7, after ("importing") insert (", possessing").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I have just spoken to this amendment. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Beaverbrook Lord Beaverbrook moved Amendment No. 39:
After Clause 55, insert the following new clause:
("Incidental copying in course of use of work in electronic form.
.—(1) This section applies to works whose use in electronic form ordinarily involves incidental copying of the whole or part of the work.
(2) Any such copying which a purchaser of a copy of the work is permitted to do without infringing copyright, by express or implied licence or by virtue of any rule of law, and in respect of which he incurs no further obligation as to payment or otherwise, may also be done without infringement of copyright by any person into whose hands that copy of the work subsequently comes.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 39, with leave I shall speak also to Amendment No. 208.
These amendments arise out of an amendment to Clause 17 which was accepted by your Lordships on Report. That amendment, in the names of my noble friends Lord Mottistone and Lord Stockton, had the effect that incidental copying in the course of running a computer program, or viewing a work stored in a computer database, was no longer excluded from the restricted act of copying. This provided the necessary legal basis for copyright owners to specify and enforce conditions about the numbers of permitted users of such works. However, in accepting the amendment, I said that the Government would bring forward an amendment to ensure that anyone legitimately acquiring a copy of such a work from a previous user who had been given a free licence to use it could use it freely to the same extent.
These amendments give effect to my undertaking. They apply to any work whose use in electronic form ordinarily involves some incidental copying. Computer programs are the most obvious examples of works which are used in this way but it is quite easy to envisage other kinds of copyright work, such as music, being made available in electronic form and played back through a computer, where incidental copying takes place.
The purpose of the amendment is to ensure that when a copy of a work in this form is sold and the first purchaser is free to use it without any further obligation, such as the requirement to make further payments after a period of use, then anyone who later acquires that copy is free to use it to the same extent as the first purchaser. This is in my view a necessary safeguard since without such a provision rights owners would be able to prevent second-hand use of copies even though they had been willing to sell such copies unconditionally in the first instance. As with other exceptions to copyright, a corresponding exception is needed in Part II. This will be provided by new paragraph 10A in Schedule 2. I beg to move.
The Earl of Stockton: My Lords, I should like to take this opportunity to thank the noble Lord for taking away our amendment at an earlier stage and bringing it back in such an embellished and improved form.
Lord Mottistone: My Lords, I should also like to add my thanks to my noble friend.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran moved Amendment No. 40:
After Clause 55, insert the following new clause:
("Sound recording of spoken literary work.
. If a sound recording of a spoken literary work has been made without infringement of copyright it is not an infringement of copyright in the literary work to broadcast, copy or otherwise exploit such a sound recording.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this amendment is directed once again to a problem that arises with broadcasters and relates to the sound recording of spoken literary work. The amendment says:
"If a sound recording of a spoken literary work has been made without infringement of copyright it is not an infringement of copyright in the literary work to broadcast, copy or otherwise exploit such a sound recording".
The difficulty that broadcasters have had with the extended definition of literary work is that it introduces an unacceptable level of uncertainty into the re-use of recordings which they had made in good faith.
Whether or not a copyright subsists in any particular piece of spoken word material or whether the scope of an implied licence extends to a particular re-broadcast are nice questions and expensive ones with which lawyers can deal and to which it might be some time before decisions of the courts give definitive answers. The purpose of this amendment is simply to ensure that if the broadcaster has obtained any consents required in order to make the recording in the first place, he should be able thereafter to use the recording without fear of infringement. That seems to me to be a commonsense position which arises out of the change in the basis of copyright under this Bill as regards broadcasters.
In the case of pure extemporisation, no consent will be necessary because copyright in the literary work will not subsist until the recording is made; so making the recording of itself will not constitute infringement of copyright. However, broadcasters usually have no way of telling in advance whether a speaker will deliver a prepared text from memory or speak from notes. Therefore, a broadcaster might well prefer formally to obtain consent or to ensure that the speaker is aware that the recording is being made.
I understand that the subject of this amendment has been carefully and somewhat sympathetically dealt with by the noble Lord's officials. I beg to move.
Lord Beaverbrook: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran, has raised again the issue of copyright in the spoken word and the fears of broadcasters that this copyright could be invoked by those interviewed on television or radio to prevent or restrict use of the recorded material.
Your Lordships will recall my saying at Report stage that if we could find a way of reconciling the concerns of broadcasters with the degree of protection which those whose spoken words are recorded for radio or television are entitled to, we would consider it. Since Report stage we have been

649
considering the matter further with the broadcasting organisations and we have been persuaded that an exception to copyright in the spoken word would be justified in relation to recorded interviews. Our previous argument against this was that broadcasters' fears were exaggerated and that such an exception was not necessary. This was because recorded interviews would either not be "works", or would be covered by an implied licence to broadcast. We still think that this will generally be the case. But we accept that sometimes there will be an element of doubt and that this could place an unreasonable burden on broadcasters.
We therefore propose that when a spoken work is recorded and all necessary consents to make that recording are obtained (so that the recording itself does not infringe copyright), the broadcasting of that recording or its inclusion in a cable programme service will not infringe copyright. Only if the speaker indicates, before the recording is made, that it is not to be used for purposes of broadcasting or inclusion in a cable programme service will this new exception not apply.
This, we believe, is a reasonable compromise. Speakers who agree to be recorded for broadcasting will still be able to impose conditions as to use if they wish to do so, but the onus will be on them to make this clear. Broadcasters will not have to worry about copyright being invoked after the event to prevent broadcast of a recorded interview to which the speaker has—tacitly or otherwise—consented.
I should perhaps stress that our proposed exception is confined to copyright as such; it will not extend to moral rights. This means that while broadcasters will he free to broadcast interviews and other spoken works which have been recorded with consent, they will still be obliged to ascribe authorship if the right to be identified is duly asserted and must observe the author's right not to subject the work in any way to a treatment which prejudices his honour or reputation.
We have not had time to work out the details of our proposed exception or to study the noble Lord's amendment closely enough to judge if it would serve the purpose. I hope, however, in the light of my assurances that we shall come back in another place, that the noble Lord will be willing to withdraw this amendment.
Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for his remarks. On the basis of that assurance I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 59 [Advertisement of sale or exhibition of artistic work]:
Lord Beaverbrook Lord Beaverbrook moved Amendment No. 41:
Page 22, line 19, leave out from ("advertising") to end of line 20 and insert ("the sale of the work").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I have already spoken to this amendment. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 62 [Hiring of sound recordings, films and computer programs]:
Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran had given notice of his intention to move Amendment No. 42:
Page 22, line 32, leave out ("sound recording").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, Amendment No. 42 is grouped with Amendment No. 45. I shall be speaking later to Amendment No. 45 and in those circumstances I do not propose to move Amendment No. 42 at this stage.
[Amendment No. 42 not moved.]
Lord Beaverbrook Lord Beaverbrook moved Amendment No. 43:
Page 23, line 7, at end insert—
("(5) Nothing in this section affects any liability under section 23 (secondary infringement) in respect of the hiring of infringing copies.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving this amendment I shall also speak to Amendment No. 204. Your Lordships will recall that Clause 62 is a new clause introduced at Report stage into the Bill as one of a group of amendments which, taken together, provide the new rental right. The substantive amendment was new subsection (3) in Clause 18 which makes the hiring of copies of sound recordings, films and computer programs a primary infringement.
Clause 23(b), which echoes the 1956 Act, already provided for secondary infringement in respect of hiring of infringing copies. We now have a primary infringement in respect of hiring copies, whether legitimate or not, and a secondary infringement of letting for hire of infringing copies.
Your Lordships may possibly recall that the relationship between primary and secondary infringement was a question addressed by your Lordships' House in its judicial capacity in the case of Infabrics v. Jaytex. In that case the primary infringement of "publication" was given a narrow construction in order to give the secondary infringement scope in which to operate. We do not want Clause 18(3) given a restricted scope in order to give Clause 23(b) some meaning.
This amendment will ensure that this does not happen. Although Clause 62 imposes a statutory licence in respect of the hiring of copies, this does not entitle people to hire out infringing copies on payment of reasonable royalty. That is still secondary infringement under the terms of Clause 23(b).
This is perhaps a convenient point to address the other consequential amendment following on from the introduction of the rental right. The new rental right introduced into the Bill at Report stage should not apply in respect of copies acquired before commencement for the purpose of hiring them out, even if those copies were only first released during the preceding 12 months. If a trader acquires goods in the legitimate expectation of being able to deal with them freely, he should not later find himself unable to do so, or able to do so only on the payment of an unexpected royalty.
This amendment to Schedule 1 ensures that the new rental right, in both its early exclusive phase and during the remainder of its term, does not bite on

651
copies which have been legally acquired under a regime in which there is no restriction on rental. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 44 not moved.]
Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran moved Amendment No. 45:
After Clause 62, insert the following new clause:
("Reference to Copyright Tribunal.
.—(1) After the end of the calendar year following that in which copies of a sound recording are first issued to the public in the United Kingdom reference may be made to the Copyright Tribunal in relation to a refusal by the copyright owner to permit the hiring of copies to the public or in relation to any terms and conditions including any royalty set by the copyright owner arising from the granting of a licence to hire any sound recording.
(2) Nothing in subsection (1) shall oblige the copyright owner to permit the hiring of a sound recording prior to the end of the calendar year following that in which copies of that sound recording are first issued to the public in the United Kingdom.
(3) In this section references to hiring include any arrangement under which a copy is made available for a consideration in money or money's worth on terms that it will or may be returned.")
The noble Lord said: My Lords, the noble Lord has referred to the new Clause 62 regarding the important matter of rental. My amendment would introduce a new clause after Clause 62 as a kind of corollary in order to avoid the many bureaucratic licensing systems which might arise under arrangements in Clause 62 as it stands. It is intended to conform as far as possible with the general policy of the Government; namely, where it is in the public interest to do so to allow businesses to develop if the market so dictates.
My amendment is intended to conform with that theme to allow rental businesses to develop if the market so dictates. Indeed, the key to my argument is that the issue of rental should be left more and more to market forces with a minimum of interference and a minimum of bureaucratic control. Therefore, in my submission, it would not be advisable to have a central licensing system as envisaged by Clause 62 since this would take a vital function out of the hands of private business, in particular the record companies.
The proposed rental provisions are a corollary to those proposed by the Government. First, the new Clause 62 that the Government introduced at Report stage establishes the right for any hirer to refer to the Copyright Tribunal any matter arising from a refusal by the record company to grant a licence to hire on unfair terms and conditions imposed by the licensee. The right to approach the tribunal with any matter under such licensing shall arise only after the initial period of one year following the year of issue—the Government's proposed year of exclusivity.
There is another point on which my amendment is intended to be helpful. It is envisaged that record companies shall make available certain repertoire for hire. Should the hirer be dissatisfied with the terms of the licence granted, or if there has been refusal of a licence, he may refer the dispute to the Copyright Tribunal for adjudication but only with regard to sound recordings that are out of the period of exclusivity—that is, one year after the year of issue.
I speak somewhat tentatively. I do not want to get involved in any general policy difficulties, because I have been talking so much about public interest. This illustrates the record industry's desire to accommodate the hiring business while retaining the right to make individual judgments as to terms and conditions and the right to protect to a degree the interests of record manufacturers and the record industry. There is a basic difference in principle between granting a right that is subject to some kind of overriding jurisdiction in circumstances where unfairness arises, and taking away the right altogether after a period of time by imposing a statutory licence. The record industry feels that by this amendment the interests of all parties concerned will be properly protected in the circumstances that I have indicated. I beg to move.
6 p.m.
Lord Jenkin of Roding: My Lords, I originally added my name to Amendment No. 49 that comes later. It is in the same form as the amendment to which I spoke on Report. Having now studied Amendment No. 45 that the noble Lord, Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran, has just moved, I should like my noble friend to appreciate that it represents an attempt to meet both the interests of the record companies and the Government's perfectly legitimate interests and concern on behalf of the consumer that records should be available for hire.
I understand the Government's anxiety, based perhaps on the American experience. If a rental right is given even for a limited period—it was indicated earlier that a five year rental right might have been appropriate—during that period compact discs would not be made available for rental. However, the fact remains that the clause as it now stands would not give the record companies the protection they reasonably require against what is illegal but unenforceable—home copying.
Popular records may well make a profit for the record companies in a comparatively short time. However, my concern is for records of a classical nature. It may well take much longer before those earn a return for the record company. It seems to me that some additional protection is required for the record company in the circumstances envisaged.
I mention again to the House that I am trustee of a musical trust that provides concert and sponsor recordings of music, mostly of the baroque period. There is no question that the records have a considerable following but lack the kind of mass appeal that can earn for the record companies a return in a short period. I have to impress upon my noble friend that the record companies, and those with whom they contract to make these records, are seriously concerned that the clause in the Bill as it stands, by imitating the Japanese rule, will deprive them of some very valuable protection. To that extent it will undermine the pre-eminent place that the British recording industry holds in the world industry. There is serious concern about this.
The amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran, goes some way to recognise that concern. I hope that my noble friend will feel able to accept it—at least the intention, if not the present drafting.
Lord Beaverbrook: My Lords, this amendment seeks to give the owners of copyright in sound recordings a full exclusive right in respect of rental but during the period when the hiring out of film and computer programs is subject to statutory licence those who are refused licences to hire out sound recordings may apply to the Copyright Tribunal. It is not clear what is to happen then, since we are given no guidance as to what the tribunal is to consider, whether it can order that a licence be granted, or what factors it should consider before making such an order.
I must say that the record industry seems to want its cake and to eat it since the first year's exclusive right is to be preserved without tribunal jurisdiction. If it is accepted that an exclusive right is appropriate if supervised by the tribunal in the last 49 years of the term, I cannot see why it should not be similarly supervised in the first year.
I hope the noble Lord will not press the amendment because I shall have to resist it at this time. However, we shall give the amendment further consideration at a more leisurely pace after this Bill has left this House. However, I would not hold out great hopes that we shall accept its underlying thrust. On that basis I hope that the noble Lord will withdraw the amendment.
Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran: My Lords, I am tempted to reply at some length because I feel that the Minister has not been quite as fair to the industry as I had hoped, especially after the considerable support given to the amendment by the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin of Roding.
However, at this late stage of the Bill, and remembering that this is Third Reading, the industry is trying to show that it is prepared to rent in the fairest possible way and to bring in the tribunal to take whatever decisions are necessary and fair in the public interest. The noble Lord indicated that there might be some light at the end of this tunnel in another place. I therefore beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 64 [Works included in, film or sound-track in which copyright has expired]:
Lord Beaverbrook Lord Beaverbrook moved Amendment No. 46:
Leave out Clause 64.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, with leave I shall also speak to Amendment No. 231. The noble Lord, Lord Hacking, presented an eloquent case at Report stage as to why Clause 64 should be left out of the Bill. I replied that we broadly accepted his arguments and would seriously consider accepting his amendment to that effect. I am happy to say that having looked at the matter further we accept that there is no good reason to retain this clause. Since none of your Lordships rose to question the noble Lord's amendment at Report stage I do not think that I need to go into the arguments again unless your Lordships wish me to do so.
Amendment No. 231, the amendment to Schedule 6, is consequential. I beg to move.
Lord Lloyd of Hampstead: My Lords, as one who put down an amendment at an earlier stage to omit what was in Clause 61, which was also supported by the noble Lord, Lord Hacking, I should like to say that unfortunately I was unable to be present when that amendment was due to be moved. I should like to express my satisfaction that the Minister has now recognised that the clause contained an anomaly which was repeated from the earlier 1956 Act. I heartily endorse his moving that the clause be omitted.
On Question, Amendment No. 46 agreed to.
Clause 64 negatived.
Clause 65 [Incidental recording for purposes of broadcast or cable programme]:
Viscount Brentford Viscount Brentford moved Amendment No. 47:
Page 23, line 34, leave out ("or authorise").
The noble Viscount said: My Lords, the intention behind this amendment is to tidy up the exemption for what are known as ephemeral recordings by making the wording accord with the Berne Convention. The clause as a whole gives a person who has been authorised by a copyright owner to broadcast his work or to include it in a cabled programme the right to record it for either of those purposes. It is a special case where the normal right of a copyright owner to control the recording of his work is overridden by statute. The Berne Convention, Article 11bis, permits this, but only if the recordings are made by the broadcasting organisation,
"by means of its own facilities and used for its own broadcast".
As the convention does not permit the broadcaster to have these recordings made by someone else, the words "or authorise' in line 34 should be omitted. I beg to move.
Lord Lloyd of Hampstead: My Lords, I should like to support the amendment. Again, I am sorry to say, with apologies to your Lordships, I was unable to be present when an amendment I had tabled at an earlier stage was reached. There is no need for me to repeat the reasons that were so clearly given by the noble Viscount, Lord Brentford. This seems to go beyond the wording of the Berne Convention for the reasons that the noble Viscount gave. I strongly support the proposal that these words "or authorised" be omitted from the Bill.
Lord Beaverbrook: My Lords, I have listened with interest to the argument advanced for restricting use of the so-called ephemeral exception to cases where the broadcaster makes the recordings himself in-house. The Government agree, and indeed the Berne Convention demands, that the exception should not be used to permit a recording to be made without copyright authorisation except where a particular broadcaster makes it himself for use in one of his own broadcasts, or sub-contracts it out, again with a particular broadcast in mind.
However, we do not think it is practicable or right under modern conditions to restrict use of the exception to the broadcaster himself; nor do we

655
regard this as required by the spirit (or necessarily even the letter) of the Berne Convention. Present-day realities are that all sorts of bodies are involved in the preparation of a broadcast. In some cases the broadcaster's own facilities may be minimal and almost all production work may be contracted out. We think that the Berne Convention is concerned to prevent the speculative making of recordings by outsiders for offer to broadcasters. The ephemeral exception had to be updated to meet these realities, as we said in the White Paper, and the Bill does this.
The main provisions of the exception—that is, its 28-day term and the restriction to use in respect of authorised broadcasts—will remain unchanged. We believe that this strikes a fair balance between broadcasters, some of whom argue for a more generous exception, and copyright owners, some of whom would like to see the exception withdrawn altogether. I regret therefore that my noble friend's amendment is not acceptable to the Government.
Viscount Brentford: My Lords, I am slightly surprised by what my noble friend has said, in the light of my understanding of the Berne Convention. The question may be raised again in another place at a later stage, but in view of the present position I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
6.15 p.m.
Lord Beaverbrook Lord Beaverbrook moved Amendment No. 48:
After Clause 65, insert the following new clause:
("Recordings for purposes of supervision and control of broadcasts and cable programmes.
.—(1) Copyright is not infringed by—

(a) the making or use of recordings by the Independent Broadcasting Authority for the purposes mentioned in section 4(7) of the Broadcasting Act 1981 (maintenance of supervision and control over programmes and advertisements); or

(b) anything done under or in pursuance of provision included in a contract between a programme contractor and the Authority in accordance with section 21 of that Act.

(2) Copyright is not infringed by anything done under or in pursuance of

(a) a notice or direction given under section 16 of the Cable and Broadcasting Act 1984 (power of Cable Authority to require production of recordings); or

(b) a condition included in a licence by virtue of section 35 of that Act (duty of Authority to secure that recordings are available for certain purposes).").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, with permission I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 210, 236, 237, 238, 242 and 243. These amendments are to meet concerns raised by the broadcasting industry and the Cable Authority that the Bill as drafted fails fully to protect broadcasters and providers of cable programme services in relation to the provision of copies of their transmissions for purposes of supervision and control. It is certainly our intention that where copies of programmes are required to be made and used for purposes of supervision and control, this may be done without infringing copyright.
Under the Bill as drafted it is intended that the needs of broadcasters and cable operators should be met by reliance on existing provisions in the
656
Broadcasting Act 1981 and the Cable and Broadcasting Act 1984, as amended in minor respects by Schedule 7 to this Bill. It has been pointed out, however, that these provisions do not cover the making of copies by the ITV programme contractors, and do not give protection in respect of the normal practice of the cable industry, which is that the requirement on cable operators to make copies of programmes for purposes of supervision and control is imposed as a term of their licences rather than in exercise of specific statutory powers.
The approach we have adopted is to introduce new provisions into the body of the Bill. These provisions are based partly on the Broadcasting Act and the Cable and Broadcasting Act and are partly new. The necessary exceptions with regard to copyright are made by the new clause to follow Clause 65, and the parallel exceptions to rights in performances are made by the amendments to Schedule 2. The first two amendments to Schedule 7 correct a minor deficiency in Section 7 of the Broadcasting Act 1981, and remove from that section the exception which will now appear in subsection (1)(a) of the new clause. The third amendment to Schedule 7, coupled with the amendments to Schedule 8, repeals those provisions of the Cable and Broadcasting Act which are now replaced by subsection (2) of the new clause.
This set of amendments will, we believe, provide adequate protection from copyright infringement in relation to recordings made for the relevant purposes by the IBA, Cable Authority, and their contractors and licensees. We recognise that similar provisions will also be required for the BBC. This has presented us with a drafting problem which regrettably we have been unable to solve before the Bill leaves your Lordships' House. This arises because the BBC operates under Royal Charter, not under legislation, and the provisions under which it agrees to maintain programme standards are in the form of a resolution by the board of governors of the BBC, which is itself not formally linked to the Royal Charter. The relevant amendments regarding the BBC will therefore have to be tabled in another place. I beg to move.
Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran: My Lords, in view of certain observations I made earlier in the proceedings some months ago about the attitude of the Government towards the broadcasting system, I thank the noble Lord for his words of sympathy on the problems of broadcasting.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 67 [Free public showing or playing of broadcast or cable programmes]:
Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran had given notice of his intention to move Amendment No. 49:
Page 24, line 21, at end insert ("(not being a sound recording or film made with a view to copies thereof being sold or let for hire, or played or shown in public)").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in the circumstances I ought to explain that this amendment includes letting for hire, but having regard to what the Minister said in relation to my submissions and those of the noble Lord, Lord

657
Jenkin of Roding, on Amendment No. 45, I have the permission of the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin, not to move the amendment.
[Amendment No. 49 not moved.]
Clause 72 [Right to be identified as author or director]:
Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran moved Amendment No. 50:
Page 26, line 20, leave out from ("of") to ("a") in line 21.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 50 I should also like to speak to Amendments Nos. 51, 52, 53, 79, 80, 125 and 127.
Noble Lords: Hear, hear!
Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran: My Lords, I am much obliged. These amendments deal with the problems arising for broadcasters as a result of the change in the basic law of copyright. The first two amendments have the effect of removing the right of an author of a literary work to be identified when the work is performed in public, broadcast or included in a cable programme servicee. In the circumstances of broadcasting that appears to be eminently reasonable.
The third amendment removes the artist's right of indentification in cases where the visual image of an artistic work is broadcast or included in a cable programme service. I have dealt briefly with Amendments Nos. 50, 51 and 52.
Amendment No. 53 removed the artist's right of identification in relation to public performance of a film, including the visual image of an artist at work if the public performance is of a broadcast or cable programme which includes the film in question. The net outcome is that as regards broadcasting the right of paternity would be preserved for the authors of dramatic works and directors of films but it would be lost by the authors of literary and artistic works.
Broadly speaking, that would put broadcasters on the same footing as newspapers, periodicals and the publishers of encyclopaedias, dictionaries, yearbooks or other collected works of reference. The justification for doing so would be the same. In other words, it puts broadcasters in the same position in which journalists now find themselves.
Inter alia, as with newspapers and periodicals, the broadcasters rely on a multiplicity of free-lance contributions which are often assembled rapidly or united into a large collectivity which is a programme. It would be hopelessly impractical, irksome to the listener and viewer and of no real benefit to the author to have to identify each and every contribution. Those remarks deal with my first four amendments.
I should like to turn to Amendment No. 79 which has been tabled by the Government. According to the groupings I should at least refer to it. I have difficulty in understanding this amendment in the context of the amendments relating to broadcasting tabled in my name.
658
My Amendment No. 80 relates to the way in which derogatory matters should be treated. The Government's amendment would remove the right to object to derogatory treatment of works made for the purpose of reporting current events, but it does not go far enough. That amendment relates to Clause 76. The broadcasters do not seek to be better treated than newspapers and periodicals or the publishers of encyclopaedias, yearbooks, dictionaries and other collective works of reference. They are seeking to be put in a similar position to that of newspapers. Broadcasters seek recognition of the fact that in terms of content their current affairs, talks, features and documentary programmes occupy identical ground to and appeal to the same interests as the daily and Sunday press and periodicals. For example, at one end of the spectrum is the Times Literary Supplement while at the other end there is Punch.
Amendments Nos. 125 and 127 have been tabled by the Government. They are brief and appear to be straightforward but in the short time available to me I have been unable to do them justice. I beg to move.
Lord Willis: My Lords, I am sorry to differ from my noble friend but I hope that the Government will resist these amendments. It is tremendously important for an author to have credits. He is often underpaid, especially at the beginning of his career, but being identified as the author of a particular work will make a great deal of difference to his future career. As I see it, these amendments nibble away at the moral rights already established in the Bill. I believe that they are totally unjustified and I hope that the Government will resist them.
Lord Beaverbrook: My Lords, I should like to speak to the group of amendments as listed by the noble Lord, Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran. However, I believe that he missed out Amendment No. 59, the first amendment on this subject tabled in my name.
Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran: My Lords, I am sorry, I referred to it but I did not understand what was meant in the context of my submission.
Lord Beaverbrook: My Lords, perhaps I shall be able to enlighten the noble Lord a little. This grouping of amendments deals with a number of proposals for further exceptions to moral rights. With the leave of your Lordships I should first like to speak to my own amendments to add a fourth subsection to both Clauses 74 and 76.
These are amendments which reflect a point raised by the noble Lord, Lord McGregor of Durris, at the Report stage about press agency services. We realise that time is very much of the essence with a wire service and the pressures are much the same as those applying to newspapers so far as moral rights are concerned. However, we felt that merely adding the words "press agency" to the newspaper exceptions would not be satisfactory because so much of the information provided by such agencies is for non-newspaper purposes —such as relaying the latest stock exchange prices to banks and financial institutions. We decided that a broad approach would be more appropriate so the rights are

659
disapplied to any works made for the purpose of reporting current events.
This formula has the added advantage of meeting some of the fears expressed on Report by the noble Lord, Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran, about the effect of moral rights on broadcasters. I explained on Report that we felt that an exception to all works made for the purposes of broadcasting would be going too far. However the noble Lord, Lord Morton, suggested that the amendment be limited to news reporting and this idea appealed to us. It means that newspapers, radio and television will be treated alike when it comes to the reporting of current events.
In the light of the amendments of the noble Lord, Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran, it is apparent that this new exception does not go far enough to meet the concerns of the broadcasting organisations. The amendments to Clause 72 seek to disapply the paternity rights in respect of literary works, including the lyrics accompanying musical works, and the visual image of artistic works which are broadcast or included in a cable programme. Amendment No. 80 proposes an exception to the integrity right in respect of literary and artistic works when they are included in certain programmes.
The Government have already gone a long way towards meeting broadcasters' concerns. It is appropriate that all of the media should be exempt from moral rights in relation to news and current affairs broadcasting and this is what the amendments I have just spoken to provide. To go further than this would I fear dilute moral rights to such an extent that they would be worthless, and would introduce all kinds of anomalies, which of course we are trying to avoid. As I explained at the Report stage, the Government decided that the fast-moving nature of the newspaper world and the risk of injunctions made a special case for newspapers. Beyond the demands of current affairs reporting the Government have concluded that these pressures do not apply to broadcasters to the same degree. I must therefore resist these amendments.
The second aspect of my own amendments concerns composite, or as we have defined them "collective" works. As I explained in response to the amendment tabled by my noble friend Lord Stockton, the Government agreed with his proposal to include composite works in the exception made for newspapers, magazines and periodicals. The problem before us was finding the best way of defining such works. We are grateful for the various suggestions made to us as to the best definition for composite works. I do not pretend that these amendments are the only way of tackling this question, but I can assure your Lordships that a great deal of thought has gone into them and I believe we have a solution which is both concise and easily understood.
The exception will apply to collective works of reference including encyclopaedias, dictionaries and yearbooks which are works of joint authorship or works in which there are distinct contributions by different authors or in which works or parts of works of different authors are incorporated. The exception will apply to both the paternity and integrity right and the other amendments provide a definition in Clause 165 and an entry for the index in Clause 166.
6.30 p.m.
Lord Morton of Shuna: My Lords, I am very grateful to the Minister for taking up something which I suggested. I believe that this is the effective compromise which is necessary because news reporting must have some protection. It is my experience as a reader—and of course I have no other experience—that if a literary work which is not a piece of news reporting is printed in a newspaper, normally the author's name is printed. In broadcasting, I see no reason if that type of work is being written and produced in some way, that the author should not also be identified. Therefore, I believe that the compromise of the government amendment is to be preferred.
Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister. Perhaps I may try to understand the case that he has made based on my Amendment No. 50. I understand him to say that his Amendments Nos. 59, 79, 125 and 127 move a certain way, as I believe they do, towards the position of broadcasters and their problems. In those circumstances, he recommends that I withdraw all the amendments in my name; in other words, Amendments Nos. 50 to 53 and Amendment No. 80. As I said, I have not had the opportunity to study with any advisers the precise scope of the four amendments grouped with mine. However, in view of what the noble Lord has said, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 51 to 53 not moved.]
Lord Beaverbrook Lord Beaverbrook moved Amendment No. 54:
Page 27, line 29, leave out from ("74") to end of line 30 and insert ("(exceptions to right)").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving this amendment I should like to speak also to Amendments Nos. 55, 56 and 58. This group of amendments deals with two drafting points. Amendments Nos. 54, 55 and 58 reflect the different meaning of exceptions to, non-applicability of, and non-infringement of the paternity right.
Amendment No. 56 is a simple drafting point: it is not a typeface which is a work but the design of a typeface. We have already considered the significance of this point at some length during earlier stages of the Bill. I beg to move Amendment No. 54.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 74 [Cases in which right does not apply]:
Lord Beaverbrook Lord Beaverbrook moved Amendments Nos. 55 and 56:
Page 28, line 23, leave out from ("director") to end of line and insert ("is subject to the following exceptions.").
Page 28, line 27, at beginning insert ("the design of").
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Lord Beaverbrook Lord Beaverbrook moved Amendment No. 57:
Page 28, line 28, at end insert—
("(2A) The right does not apply to anything done by or with the authority of the copyright owner where copyright in the work originally vested—

(a) in the author's employer by virtue of section 11(2) (works produced in course of employment), or

(b) in the director's employer by virtue of section 9(2)(a) (person to be treated as author of film).").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, during the Report stage I agreed in principle with the amendment of my noble friend Lord Stockton to disapply the paternity right to employees. As I explained then, considerable concern has been expressed by employers about having to identify authors of all works in the manner required by this clause and we felt that the paternity right should not apply to employed authors and film directors.
I was unable to accept my noble friend's amendment at Report because it did not cater for film directors. We have now done this in Amendment No. 54. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Beaverbrook Lord Beaverbrook moved Amendments Nos. 58 and 59:
Page 28, line 29, leave out ("does not apply in relation to") and insert ("is not infringed by").
Page 28, line 41, leave out subsection (4) and insert—
("4) The right does not apply in relation to any work made for the purpose of reporting current events.
(4A) The right does not apply in relation to the publication in—

(a) a newspaper, magazine or similar periodical, or

(b) an encyclopaedia, dictionary, yearbook or other collective work of reference,

of a literary, dramatic, musical or artistic work made for the purposes of such publication or made available with the consent of the author for the purposes of such publication.").
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Clause 75 [Right not to suffer unjustified modification of work]:
Lord Beaverbrook Lord Beaverbrook moved Amendment No. 60:
Page 29, line 8, leave out ("unjustified modification") and insert ("derogatory treatment").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 60, I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 61 to 75, 77, 84, 85, 89, 90, 96, 100, 102, 106, 107 and 205.
A great deal of thought has been given to the wording of the integrity right in Clause 75. During the Report stage the noble Lord, Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran, proposed that we should drop the reasonableness test and adopt the exact wording of Article 6 bis of the Berne Convention. I agreed that the "reasonable in the circumstances" test should be left out because it went further than what is specified by Berne.
Having looked again at the wording of Article 6 bis it does seem wise to use it where possible. We have tried to fit the new expressions into the existing structure of the clause. Thus instead of an "unjustified modification" we will have "derogatory treatment" which is a distortion or mutilation of the work which is prejudicial to the author's honour or reputation. I believe that those words enhance the
662
clarity of the integrity right and have the added advantage of familiarity. I hope these amendments meet the concerns expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran, and the views expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Morton of Shuna, on the same subject. I beg to move Amendment No. 60.
Lord Morton of Shuna: My Lords, I am very grateful for this modification of the definition which makes the matter much clearer and more precise. That is especially so as regards the definition of what amounts to derogatory treatment which, as I understand it, Amendment No. 62 makes much clearer than the original definition in the Bill. I thank the Minister for taking on board the suggestion that both I and the noble Lord, Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran made.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Beaverbrook Lord Beaverbrook moved Amendments Nos. 61 to 75:
Page 29, line 10, leave out ("modification") and insert ("treatment").
Page 29, line 15, leave out paragraph (b) and insert—
("(b) 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.").
Page 29, line 18, leave out from ("section") to end of line 20 and insert ("references to a "derogatory treatment") of a work shall be construed accordingly.").
Page 29, line 24, leave out ("modified version") and insert ("derogatory treatment").
Page 29, line 27, leave out ("modified version") and insert ("derogatory treatment").
Page 29, line 30, leave out ("modified version") and insert ("derogatory treatment").
Page 29, line 32, leave out ("modified version") and insert ("derogatory treatment").
Page 29, line 33, leave out ("modified version") and insert ("derogatory treatment").
Page 29, line 39, leave out ("modified version") and insert ("derogatory treatment").
Page 29, line 42, leave out ("unjustified modification") and insert ("derogatory treatment").
Page 29, line 46, leave out ("modified version") and insert ("derogatory treatment").
Page 30, line 1, leave out ("modified version") and insert ("derogatory treatment").
Page 30, line 3, leave out ("modified version") and insert ("derogatory treatment").
Page 30, line 5, leave out ("modification") and insert ("treatment").
Page 30, line 6, leave out ("modification") and insert ("treatment").
On Question, amendments agreed to.
[Amendment No. 76 not moved.]
Clause 76 [Cases in which modification need not be justified]:
Lord Beaverbrook Lord Beaverbrook moved Amendment No. 77:
Page 30, line 11, leave out from second ("right") to end of line 12 and insert ("to object to derogatory treatment of work) is subject to the following exceptions.").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Beaverbrook Lord Beaverbrook moved Amendment No. 78:
Page 30, line 15, leave out subsection (3).
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 78 I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 81 and 83. In our discussions on

663
Report about possible exceptions to moral rights, the noble Lord, Lord Morton of Shuna, raised a valid point about the integrity right which we are now following up in this amendment. Concern was expressed about an employed author or director who is identified on a work that has been subjected to derogatory treatment. If the work was published, or exploited in some other way, the employee would have no remedy.
That certainly did not seem fair and we feel that the best way to deal with such a situation is for employed authors and directors to be given the integrity right where they are identified, or have previously been identified, but for the right not to be infringed if the derogatory treatment is accompanied by a disclaimer which explains that the work has been modified without consent. This will apply to authors and film directors when the copyright in their works vests in an employer, the Crown or an international organisation.
The disclaimer must be clear and reasonably prominent and if the author or director is identified on the work, appear with the identification. Thus the employed director of a film which was cut to half its original length for television showing would be entitled to a disclaimer in the credits of the film. I hope this meets the noble Lord's concerns.
Perhaps I may mention here that the reason I did not move Amendment No. 76 a moment ago is that it refers to line 22 when it should refer to line 10. It was intended as a paving amendment for Amendments Nos. 78, 81 and 83. This will also have to be put right in another place. I beg to move Amendment No. 78.
Lord Morton of Shuna: My Lords, it seems to be my pleasant job this evening just to say thank you to the Government for having taken on board various of my suggestions. I do it again and thank the Government very much for doing so.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Beaverbrook Lord Beaverbrook moved Amendment No. 79:
Page 30, line 25, leave out subsection (4) and insert—
("(4) The right does not apply in relation to any work made for the purpose of reporting current events.
(4A) The right does not apply in relation to the publication in—

(a) a newspaper, magazine or similar periodical, or

(b) an encyclopaedia, dictionary, yearbook or other collective work of reference,

of a literary, dramatic, musical or artistic work made for the purposes of such publication or made available with the consent of the author for the purposes of such publication.
Nor does the right apply in relation to any subsequent exploitation elsewhere of such a work without any modification of the published version.").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 80 not moved.]
Lord Beaverbrook Lord Beaverbrook moved Amendment No. 81:
Page 30, line 30, leave out subsection (5).
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Beaverbrook Lord Beaverbrook moved Amendment No. 82:
Page 30, line 36, at end insert—
("(6) The right is not infringed by anything done for the purpose of—

(a) avoiding the commission of an offence, or

(b) complying with a duty imposed by or under an enactment, provided, where the author or director is identified at the time of the relevant act or has previously been identified in or on published copies of the work, that there is a sufficient disclaimer.

(7) A "sufficient disclaimer" means an indication that the work has been subjected to treatment to which the author or director has not consented which—

(a) is given at the time of the relevant act, and

(b) if the author or director is then identified, appears along with the identification,

and which is clear and reasonably prominent.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, we looked at this matter on Report and the possibility of making exceptions to the integrity right in respect of modifications made in pursuance of statutory requirements. This was in response to an amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran. This amendment to Clause 76 makes such an exception.
It provides that modifications may be made to a work to avoid committing a criminal offence or to meet statutory requirements without infringing the integrity right. This is subject to a sufficient disclaimer being made in cases where the author is or has previously been identified in or on published copies of the work. I explained this new idea of sufficient disclaimer in speaking to Amendment No. 83.
Subject to one point, I hope this will meet the concerns expressed on Report on behalf of broadcasters who sometimes have to make modifications in respect of obscenity or acts of violence shown on television. That one point is of course the position of the BBC. I have already spoken about it on Amendment No. 48, and what I said there applies here also. I am afraid that the BBC will have to wait until this Bill is considered in another place to discover how its concerns are to be met. I beg to move.
Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran: My Lords, I thank the Minister for bringing forward an amendment which was adumbrated by me in the earlier proceedings on this Bill.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
The Deputy Speaker (Lord Renton): My Lords, Amendments Nos. 83, 84, 85 and 86 have already been discussed with previous amendments. Subject to your Lordships' wishes, I put them en bloc.
Lord Beaverbrook: My Lords, I understand that I have to move these amendments formally.
The Deputy Speaker: My Lords, I call Amendment No. 83.
Lord Beaverbrook Lord Beaverbrook moved Amendment No. 83:
After Clause 76, insert the following new clause:
("Qualification of right in certain cases.
.—(1) This section applies to works in which the copyright originally vested—

(a) in the author's employer by virtue of section 11(2) (works produced in course of employment),

(b) in the director's employer by virtue of section 9(2)(a) (person to be treated as author of film),

(c) in Her Majesty by virtue of section 154, or

(d) in an international organisation by virtue of section 155.

(2) The right conferred by section 75 (right to object to derogatory treatment of work) does not apply to anything done in relation to such a work by or with the authority of the copyright owner unless the author or director—

(a) is identified at the time of the relevant act, or

(b) has previously been identified in or on published copies of the work;

and where in such a case the right does apply, it is not infringed if there is a sufficient disclaimer.
(3) A "sufficient disclaimer" means an indication that the work has been subjected to treatment to which the author or director has not consented which—

(a) is given at the time of' the relevant act, and

(b) if the author or director is then identified, appears along with the identification,

and which is clear and reasonably prominent.").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 77 [Infringement of right by possessing or dealing with modified work or copy]:
Lord Beaverbrook Lord Beaverbrook moved Amendments Nos. 84 and 85:
Page 30, line 37, leave out ("not to suffer modification)") and insert ("to object to derogatory treatment)").
Page 31, line 2, leave out ("unjustified modification") and insert ("derogatory treatment").
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Lord Beaverbrook Lord Beaverbrook moved Amendment No. 86:
After Clause 78, insert the following new clause:
("Right to privacy of certain photographs and films.
.—(1) A person who for private and domestic purposes commissions the taking of a photograph or the making of a film has, where copyright subsists in the resulting work, the right not to have—

(a) copies of the work issued to the public,

(b) the work exhibited or shown in public, or

(c) the work broadcast or included in a cable programme service; and, except as mentioned in subsection (2), a person who does or authorises the doing of any of those acts infringes that right.

(2) The right is not infringed by an act which by virtue of any of the following provisions would not infringe copyright in the work—

(a) section 31 (incidental inclusion of work in an artistic work, film, broadcast or cable programme);

(b) section 45 (parliamentary and judicial proceedings);

(c) section 46 (Royal Commissions and statutory inquiries);

(d) section 50 (acts done under statutory authority).").

On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 79 [Duration of rights]:
Lord Beaverbrook Lord Beaverbrook moved Amendment No. 87:
Page 32, line 11, leave out from ("director)") to ("continue") in line 12 and insert (", section 75 (right to object to derogatory treatment of work) and section (Right to privacy of certain photographs and films) (right to privacy of certain photographs and films)").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
6.45 p.m.
Lord Beaverbrook Lord Beaverbrook moved Amendment No. 88:
Page 32, leave out lines 13 and 14.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving this amendment I shall speak to Amendments Nos. 99, 103, 132, 133 and 134.
We discussed both in Committee and on Report what should happen to moral rights when the author dies. Concern was expressed about the lapse of the paternity and integrity rights in situations where neither a specific bequest had been made nor would the rights pass with copyright as part of the estate. I agreed on Report that it would be unreasonable not to give the paternity and integrity rights the same treatment as the false attribution right and promised to return with government amendments to meet the concerns of the noble Lord, Lord Morton of Shuna.
The amendments to Clause 88 provide that after the death of the author moral rights are exercisable by his personal representatives if there is no specific bequest or if the rights do not pass with copyright. Subsection (5) is split into two so that new subsection (6) can apply to subsection (1) as well as to subsection (5).
Amendments Nos. 132, 133 and 134 make the equivalent changes for the transmission of rights in performances upon the death of the performer. I beg to move.
Lord Morton of Shuna: My Lords, this is where I repeat myself. I thank the noble Lord for the consideration given to the problems I had at an earlier stage. I think he has met the problems.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 81 [Application of provisions to joint works]:
The Deputy Speaker: My Lords, Amendments Nos. 89 and 90 have already been discussed with Amendment No. 60, and I put the Question on these amendments together.
Lord Beaverbrook Lord Beaverbrook moved Amendments Nos. 89 and 90:
Page 32, line 40, leave out ("not to suffer modification)") and insert ("to object to derogatory treatment of work)").
Page 32, line 42, leave out ("modification") and insert ("treatment").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I am told that I should formally move these amendments. I beg to move.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
The Deputy Speaker: My Lords, owing to the rapid progress that we have made I now find myself swimming against the stream and may need your Lordships' assistance from time to time.
Lord Beaverbrook Lord Beaverbrook moved Amendment No. 91:
Page 32, line 43, leave out ("Any") and insert ("A").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving this amendment perhaps I may say that I am happy to give the noble Lord on the Woolsack any assistance that may be needed. I am grateful to him for all the assistance which he has given us so far.
In moving Amendment No. 91, with the leave of the House I speak also to Amendment No. 92. These are drafting amendments. Amendment No. 91 simply replaces the words "Any waiver" with the words "A waiver". The amendment to subsection (4) is necessary to make it clear that the false attribution right applies if there is any false statement as to the authorship of a work of joint authorship and not just in the situation where sole authorship is attributed to a work of joint authorship, or vice versa. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Beaverbrook Lord Beaverbrook moved Amendment No. 92:
Page 33, leave out lines 3 to 6 and insert—

"(a) by any false statement as to the authorship of a work of joint authorship, and

(b) by the false attribution of joint authorship in relation to a work of sole authorship;

and such a false attribution infringes the right of every person to whom authorship of any description is, whether rightly or wrongly, attributed.").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Beaverbrook Lord Beaverbrook moved Amendment No. 93:
Page 33, line I3, at end insert—
("(6) The right conferred by section (Right to privacy of certain photographs and films) (right to privacy of certain photographs and films) is, in the case of a work made in pursuance of a joint commission, a right of each person who commissioned the making of the work, so that—

(a) the right of each is satisfied if he consents to the act in question, and

(b) a waiver under section 80 by one of them does not affect the rights of the others.").

On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 82 [Application of provisions to parts of works]:
Lord Beaverbrook Lord Beaverbrook moved Amendments Nos. 94,95 and 96:
Page 33, line 14, leave out ("right") and insert ("rights").
Page 33, line 15, leave out ("applies") and insert ("and section (Right to privacy of certain photographs and films) (right to privacy of certain photographs and films) apply").
Page 33, line 17, leave out ("not to suffer modification") and insert ("to object to derogatory treatment").
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Clause 83 [Assignment and licences]:
Lord Beaverbrook Lord Beaverbrook moved Amendment No. 97:
Page 33, line 27, leave out ("acts") and insert ("things").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, with leave, I speak also to Amendment No. 153. On Report my noble friend Lord Stockton sought to insert wording, found in Section 36(2)(a) of the 1956 Act, into subsection (2) of this clause. He said that it is vital for publishers to establish that classes of book volume rights, such as paperback rights and book club rights, are rights and copyrights and that enforcement of these rights should not merely be in action for breach of contract but also for infringement of copyright.
For the reasons I gave at that time I do not think anything is necessary, but being ever willing to assist
668
my noble friend when circumstances permit I return with this amendment which I hope will remove any doubts that publishers may have. The replacement of the word "acts" by the word "things" should avoid the misconstruction placed on the present draft that an assignment could not sub-divide the various restrictive acts. For example, it was believed that one had to assign the copying rights as a whole and could not assign the paperback rights while retaining the hardback rights.
As I have said, that construction of the clause is misconceived; but it should not arise with the new drafting. For the sake of consistency the corresponding Clause 204 in Part III should be amended in a like manner. I beg to move.
The Earl of Stockton: My Lords, I thank the Minister for reassuring the publishing industry which is indeed a splendid thing.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 87 [Moral rights not assignable]:
Lord Beaverbrook Lord Beaverbrook moved Amendment No. 98:
Page 34, line 39, leave out from ("by") to ("are") in line 41 and insert ("Chapter IV (moral rights)")
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I have already spoken to this amendment, and I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 88 [Transmission of moral rights on death]:
Lord Beaverbrook Lord Beaverbrook moved Amendments Nos. 99 to 103:
Page 34, line 42, leave out subsection (1) and insert—
("(1) On the death of a person entitled to the right conferred by section 72 (right to identification of author or director), section 75 (right to object to derogatory treatment of work) or section (Right to privacy of certain photographs and films) (right to privacy of certain photographs and films) —

(a) the right passes to such person as he may by testamentary disposition specifically direct,

(b) if there is no such direction but the copyright in the work in question forms part of his estate, the right passes to the person to whom the copyright passes, and

(c) if or to the extent that the right does not pass under paragraph (a) or (b) it is exercisable by his personal representatives.")

Page 35, line 21, leave out ("not to suffer modification") and insert ("to object to derogatory treatment")
Page 35, line 22, after ("work)") insert ("or section (Right to privacy of certain photographs and films) (right to privacy of certain photographs and films)")
Page 35, line 24, leave out ("modification") and insert ("treatment or act")
Page 35, line 30, leave out from beginning to ("in") in line 32 and insert—
("(5) Any infringement after a person's death of the right conferred by section 78 (false attribution) is actionable by his personal representatives.
(6) Any damages recovered by personal representatives by virtue of this section")
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Clause 92 [Right to seize infringing copies, &c.]:
Lord Beaverbrook Lord Beaverbrook moved Amendment No. 104:
Page 36, line 34, leave Out paragraph (b) and insert—
("(b) that at the time when any copy or article is seized the person by whom it is seized leaves at the place where it is 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.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 104, with leave, I shall speak to Amendment No. 135. These amendments concern the seizure provisions and arise from the questions which the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Elvel, asked when we discussed the matter at Report stage. The noble Lord in fact asked three questions. His first was, in effect, is the expression "a local police station" sufficiently clear. At the time I said that I thought it was, and having reflected on the matter, I believe that I was right. It is a simple question of fact. As a result, I am not proposing any change.
However, I am proposing a change in response to the noble Lord's second question. This was: how long after a seizure is effected could the prescribed notice he delivered? As I said at Report stage, it was our intention that the notice should be left at the time the seizure is made and I am very grateful to the noble Lord for pointing out that the clause did not quite say this. The amendments will I think put the matter right.
The noble Lord's final question concerned the clarity of the notice, bearing in mind that it will be aimed at street traders and not, we hope, at lawyers. As I said at Report, we were also concerned about this and had therefore proposed to take powers to specify the form that the notice should take. Prompted by the noble Lord's question, we have looked at this again. As a result, we have decided that we could usefully tighten things up a little. The amendments will ensure that not only will the notice have to be in the prescribed form, but it will also have to give prescribed details concerning the grounds on which the seizure is made. In this way we shall be able to ensure that the notice sets out all relevant information in the clearest possible terms.
I very much hope that these amendments will remove any remaining concerns. As I said, I am very grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Williams, for what I hope he will allow me to describe as his constructive probing. I beg to move.
Lord Morton of Shuna: My Lords, on behalf of my noble friend Lord Williams, I should like again to say thank you. It is very pleasant that on this occasion it seems that some of the suggestions from this side of the House are acceptable and are acted upon. We hope that this approach will move into other Bills and perhaps they may be treated in the same way.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 96 [Remedies for infringement of moral rights]:
The Deputy Speaker: My Lords, Amendments Nos. 105, 106 and 107 have been discussed. Does the noble Lord move them?
Lord Beaverbrook: My Lords, with leave I move those amendments en bloc.
Page 38, line 14, leave out from ("of") to end of line 17 and insert ("a right conferred by Chapter IV (moral rights)")
Page 38, line 21, leave out ("not to suffer modification") and insert ("to object to derogatory treatment")
Page 38, line 24, leave out from ("court,") to end of line 25 and insert ("dissociating the author or director from the treatment of the work.")
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Viscount Brentford Viscount Brentford moved Amendment No. 108:
Before Clause 97, insert the following new clause:
("Presumptions.
.—(1) In proceedings brought by virtue of this Chapter it shall be presumed, in the absence of evidence to the contrary—

(a) that copyright subsists in the work to which the action relates, and

(b) that the plaintiff, if he claims to be the owner of the copyright, is the owner.

(2) Where in any such proceedings the plaintiff claims to be exclusive licensee and shows that a document purporting to grant an exclusive licence was signed by or on behalf of a person purporting to be the copyright owner, it shall be presumed in the absence of evidence to the contrary that that person was the owner of the copyright at the time the licence was granted.")
The noble Viscount said: My Lords, at earlier discussions on this Bill my noble friend the Minister suggested that the presumptions in favour of different parties as set out at present in Clauses 95 and 96 were adequate. In Clause 95 there are presumptions in favour of an author. In Clause 96 there is a presumption in favour of the owners of sound recordings and films. I suggest that without the wording in Amendment No. 108 there are no presumptions in favour of the copyright owners of the literary, dramatic or musical works themselves. This amendment seeks to rectify the defect. It is only the copyright owners or in some cases their exclusive licensees, who are permitted to sue for infringement. This amended clause fills that vacuum. I beg to move.
Lord Beaverbrook: My Lords, this amendment seeks to reinstate a clause which your Lordships agreed should be left out at Report stage. Clause 94, as it then was, found few friends in Committee and was strongly criticised both inside and outside your Lordships' House. I am rather surprised to see it resurface so quickly after what I had hoped was a decent burial.
The rejected Clause 94 which this amendment seeks to restore may seem justified when one is considering a case of out-and-out piracy. For example, it may be glaringly obvious to the layman that the latest box office and video rental hit from Hollywood is entitled to copyright and that the producer or his successor in title owns that copyright, and in such circumstances the presumptions set out in this amendment might seem reasonable. But this is only one end of the spectrum of cases of infringement which the courts will have to consider, and elsewhere in that spectrum these presumptions would give wholly the wrong result. For example, a defendant may be alleged to have infringed copyright in an artistic work by using that work as the design of wallpaper.
The defendant may well deliberately have copied that design from an existing source, but be under the

671
impression either that that source was in the public domain or that the person who gave him permission to copy the design from that source was entitled to do so. He is in no position to produce evidence to dispute the plaintiff's claim until he knows what the plaintiff is alleging as the basis for his claim.
For example, the plaintiff might claim that the design apparently within the public domain was first drawn by a very youthful artist who lived to a very great age and died 49 years ago and that he, the plaintiff, is the assignee of the artist's great grandson. That situation may be highly improbable, but not impossible, and the very stuff of legal proceedings. That sort of claim might not even get beyond cross-examination. If it did, the defendant ought to be allowed to see the particulars of the plaintiff's claim before having to decide whether to defend it and, if so, upon what grounds. He should not have to produce evidence which he does not have in order to rebut a presumption which may have no foundation.
I believe your Lordships were right to reject the old Clause 94. I do not want to go over the ground we covered a little over four weeks ago, but your Lordships may recall that I referred to the "Notice to admit" procedures, which the noble Viscount, Lord Brentford, has mentioned today I believe. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Donaldson of Lymington, before he became a member of this House, said in an unreported case in the Court of Appeal referred to in Supreme Court Practice:
"The powers given by Order 27 are all too rarely exercised. The use of those rules and the penalties as to costs are of the greatest importance in the administration of justice and ought to be relied on more frequently".
The procedure endorsed by the noble and learned Lord should not be dismissed until it has been tried in the copyright field and found wanting. But in any event, there can be no going back to the extreme presumptions contained in this amendment. For that reason, I oppose my noble friend's amendment.
Viscount Brentford: My Lords, I appreciate the very full answer given by my noble friend. I am glad that he can see the reasonable circumstances that can give rise to it. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 101 [Forfeiture of infringing copies, &c.]:
Lord Beaverbrook Lord Beaverbrook moved Amendment No. 109:
Page 40, line 43, after ("it") insert ("has been or").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving this amendment, I also speak, with leave, to Amendment No. 160.
On Question, amendment agreed to
7 p.m.
Clause 104 [Infringing copies may be treated as prohibited goods]:
Viscount Brentford Viscount Brentford moved Amendment No. 110:
Page 42, line 7, leave out ("printed").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, the text of Clause 104 gives the owners of printed works and of sound
672
recordings and films a right to request the commissioners of Customs and Excise to stop those goods being imported. As it is often the copyright works embodied in a sound recording or film that need to be treated as prohibited goods, the amendment seeks to extend the facility to other copyright owners.
My noble friend has previously resisted amendments along these lines mainly on practical grounds and in particular because of the difficulty that the commissioners might have in checking computer programs at ports of entry. I suggest that this practical problem could be eased by the commissioners making regulations under the power given to them by Clause 105 to require copyright owners of the recorded material to give the commissioners details of the relevant sound recordings or films. All the commissioners will then have to do is find the sound recording or film. I beg to move.
Lord Mottistone: My Lords, I support the amendment, having moved earlier amendments along these lines. The solution suggested by my noble friend is a good one The arguments were that the poor old customs officers were so overworked that they could not cope. I do not think that that is good enough. The amendment deserves inclusion in the Bill.
Lord Lloyd of Hampstead: My Lords, I moved an amendment along these lines on a previous occasion but withdrew it because the Minister put forward practical considerations that seemed difficult to resist. If, as suggested, there are ways of meeting these practical difficulties for the commissioners of Customs and Excise, perhaps the point deserves reconsideration. Therefore, I support the amendment.
Lord Beaverbrook: My Lords, an identical amendment was tabled in Committee and on Report, and I must again resist it. As I pointed out in Committee, Clause 104 introduces a significant change in the law in relation to the importation of infringing films and sound recordings. However, due to practical considerations and resource constraints we cannot do much more. I explained the reasons very fully in Committee and on Report, and I do not intend to go over the ground yet again. If any noble Lord wishes to know the reasons, I refer him to the relevant Hansard.
I have listened carefully to what my noble friend has said. There is much more to the question of resource difficulties than can be cured merely by the notification that he suggested. Computer programs in particular require special equipment in order to be read.
I regret that I am not convinced by what has been said by my noble friends Lord Brentford and Lord Mottistone. The major considerations are resources, and I stand by what I said at an earlier stage.
Viscount Brentford: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend for his explanation. I remain concerned about the balance in the Bill. The Minister has not

673
been able to accept any of the amendments that I have put forward, particularly on behalf of composers and their publishers, which have so far failed on home taping, on rental, on limiting the ephemeral and on reinstating the presumption for onus exemption.
I can only hope that the Government will reconsider these points when the Bill goes to another place. I remind noble Lords that the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry on Second Reading said that those with ideas deserve to receive a fair reward. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 107 [Licensing schemes and licensing bodies]:
Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran moved Amendment No. 111:
Page 44, line 12, at end insert—
("(1 A) Any conditions which are printed on or issued in association with a copyright item may not restrict or prohibit an act which is not an infringement under this Part unless the conditions are also included in a licensing scheme.").
The noble Lord said: We have reached another chapter of the Bill concerning licensing schemes and licensing bodies of which Clause 107 is the first clause.
The purpose of the amendment is to deal with questions arising at what is technically known as point of sale licensing; that is, printing of details of terms on each journal issue as part of a licensing scheme. The amendment is considered important from the point of view of the Library Association. The conditions covered in the amendment are straightforward. I notice with some gratitude that the noble Earl, Lord Stockton, nods his head in what I hope is approval.
The purpose of the amendment is to stem the use by publishers of what is known as a negative form of point of sale licensing. It is advisable for reminders of statutory copyright to appear on items sold. It is desirable for items to show positive point of sale licensing details as to how payments may be made for the extensions of legal allowances. It appears inappropriate to my advisers to print on items various restrictions of actions which are neither infringements nor conditions in the formal licence.
If the practice is to remain as drafted in the Bill, it will cause confusion and prevent a potential purchaser from exercising his normal rights of use. The prohibitive phrases are mostly unseen at the time of purchase. The fear of litigation succeeding unfairly on implied contract grounds, despite the absence of a statutory basis, would be removed by the amendment. I beg to move.
Lord Beaverbrook: My Lords, we have not had as long to consider the amendment as we might have wished. However, from briefing material circulated by the Library Association we surmised that the purpose was to prevent contract from prohibiting acts which are permitted under copyright law. I have to say that Clause 107 is rather a curious place to provide such an amendment, but I would have to resist the amendment wherever it was placed.
674
The exceptions to copyright in Chapter III of Part I of the Bill do not confer inalienable rights on users of copyright material. They can be negated by contract. The person selling copyright material is free to impose any conditions he wishes in his contract of sale. If the buyer cannot accept those conditions, he can decline to buy. A common condition imposed on the sale of books prohibits rebinding. That has nothing to do with copyright. There is no restricted act of binding a copyright work and, obviously, no exception to be negated.
Rather than going the way suggested in this amendment, we are giving serious thought to tabling an amendment in another place to provide a specific reference in Chapter III to the fact that contract may override its provisions. For example, it is imperative that those who make expensive training films are able to impose conditions in their contracts of supply to their customers. The same applies to expensive computer programs on disc or magnetic tape.
The copyright owner must be in a position to prohibit onward transmission by sale or hire of such valuable commodities. I cannot accept that he should be able to prohibit acts which would damage his interests only if he joins a licensing scheme. Joining a licensing scheme will usually be the last thing such copyright owners would wish to do. Part of the reason they exercise such tight contractual control over copies is to limit the opportunity for copying. For those reasons I must resist the amendment tabled in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran. However, I should emphasise to him that we are, as I have already said, considering the possibilities in the matter.
Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran: My Lords, I must again apologise for the lateness with which this amendment was lodged. I am grateful to the Minister for what he has said and in the circumstances I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Beaverbrook Lord Beaverbrook moved Amendment No. 112:
Page 44, line 17, leave out ("extending to the works of several authors") and insert ("covering works of more than one author").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 112 I shall, with the leave of the House, speak also to Amendments Nos. 113, 116 and 129. The intention of Clause 107 has always been to define a licensing body so as to cover organisations whose licensing activities are concerned with the works of a number of unconnected authors. Recently it has been pointed out to us that as drafted the definition could apply to a body whose licensing activities are confined to a single collective work, or collective works, of which the authors are the same. That would not be right and such a situation was never intended by us. Therefore the amendments to Clause 107 seek to rectify that situation. The amendment to Clause 115 is a consequential drafting amendment and the amendment to Clause 166 is the usual addition of another defined term to the list. I beg to move.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, I have no comment to make on the Government's amendment.

675
However, it would be appropriate for me to comment on the grouping which the Minister has put forward. The tight grouping, which as I understand it is the final version produced by the Government Whip, places Amendment No. 112 together with Amendment No. 116. Nevertheless, I think the Minister said that he was also speaking to Amendment No. 129. We have had trouble on previous occasions with groupings in Bills and I must say that it is somewhat confusing for the Opposition if such groupings are not correct. I very much hope that the noble Lord will report back to the Government Whip that we should like the groupings to be right.
Lord Beaverbrook: My Lords, it seems that an error has somehow crept in, either in the Marshalled List or perhaps in my own notes. However, these amendments sit together and I should just say that it is an error on the right side in that we have slightly overgrouped on these small amendments, rather than the other way round, which would have been rather less helpful to the House.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Beaverbrook Lord Beaverbrook moved Amendment No. 113:
Page 44, line 19, at end insert—
("(4) References in this Chapter to licences or licensing schemes covering works of more than one author do not include licences or schemes covering only a single collective work or collective works of which the authors are the same.").
The Deputy Speaker: My Lords, is it just Amendment No. 113 that is being moved at this stage? I think the noble Lord could go as far as Amendment No. 116, as all those amendments have been referred to in discussion.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, with respect, I do not think the noble Lord has spoken to Amendment No. 113.
The Deputy Speaker: My Lords, the other amendments have not been discussed so it is just a question of Amendment No. 113 at present.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
7.15 p.m.
Clause 109 [Reference of proposed licensing scheme to tribunal]:
Lord Beaverbrook Lord Beaverbrook moved Amendment No. 114:
Page 45, line 1, leave out from ("a") to ("be") in line 2 and insert ("licensing scheme proposed to be operated by a licensing body may").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving this amendment I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 115, 117 and 118. I said on Report, when replying to the noble Lord, Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran, that we were persuaded that a case existed for enabling would-be licensees to refer to the Copyright Tribunal, without the consent of the licensing body, prospective schemes of licences which a licensing body might have offered to them. I promised that provided we were satisfied that this would not result in an unacceptable degree of compulsory licensing
676
or a breach of our convention obligations we would return with our own amendments.
These amendments fulfil that undertaking. On the issue of compulsory licensing the clauses as amended will, as before, apply only to schemes which it is actually proposed should be operated and to licences which it is actually proposed should be granted. Moreover, they will only be applicable to schemes or licences offered by licensing bodies, which are by definition in the business of licensing their repertoires for general use.
There will be no compulsion on any individual copyright owner who does not want to licence his work for the use in question. Nor will it be possible to take a licensing body to the tribunal in circumstances where no scheme or licence has been offered and where no such offer is intended, unless those circumstances come within Clause 112. We are satisfied that this is sufficient protection for the copyright owner who does not want to license his works for a particular use.
As I said on Report, we recognise that there must nonetheless be a means whereby users, such as broadcasters, can gain access on arbitrated, equitable terms to the works controlled by monopoly licensing bodies, when agreement on terms cannot be reached by voluntary negotiation. The amendments will ensure that that will continue to be possible in the future, as it is already in practice under the 1956 Act.
However, we have incorporated one extra safeguard, which is that the tribunal will have a discretion to judge whether a reference is premature before deciding whether to entertain it. Obviously the tribunal should not have to consider a proposed scheme or licence which is at such an early stage of its drafting that no sensible order could be made in respect of it. The substance of the change as regards licensing schemes is contained in the amendments to Clause 109, and as regards licences in the amendments to Clause 116. I beg to move.
Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran: My Lords, I am most grateful to the Minister for bringing forward these amendments, based on amendments which I originally tabled.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
The Deputy Speaker: My Lords, it would seem that Amendments Nos. 115 to 118 inclusive have already been discussed. Therefore, does the noble Lord wish to move them?
Lord Beaverbrook Lord Beaverbrook moved Amendments Nos. 115 to 118:
Page 45, line 7, after ("shall") insert ("first decide whether to entertain the reference, and may decline to do so on the ground that the reference is premature.
(2A) If the Tribunal decides to entertain the reference it shall").
Clause 115, page 48, line 7, leave out ("the").
Clause 116, page 48, line 20, leave out (", with the consent of the licensing body,").
Page 48, line 22, after ("shall") insert ("first decide whether to entertain the reference, and may decline to do so on the ground that the reference is premature.
(2A) If the Tribunal decides to entertain the reference it shall").
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Clause 152 [Denial of copyright protection to citizens of countries not giving adequate protection to British works]:
Lord Beaverbrook Lord Beaverbrook moved Amendment No. 119:
Page 64, line 30, leave out ("copyright protection given") and insert ("rights conferred by this Part in relation").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, with leave, I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 120 and 121. These are amendments to Clause 152, and with them I am honouring a commitment previously given to the noble Lord, Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran, on Report. The noble Lord moved that a new clause, which was closely modelled on what is now Clause 152, should be inserted in the Bill. As he explained, his object was to avoid moral rights being conferred on authors and directors whose countries do not confer similar rights on British authors and directors.
I accepted the desirability of providing powers to deny moral rights to citizens of countries not giving adequate protection to British authors in the same way as Clause 152 provides such powers in respect of adequate protection of copyright. As I indicated at the time, I think we can achieve this object by amendment of the copyright clause rather than providing an additional, virtually identical, moral right clause. I hope the amendments meet the concerns of the noble Lord. I beg to move.
Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran: My Lords, I should briefly like to thank the Minister and his officials for bringing forward the amendments, which are based on what I originally suggested.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Beaverbrook Lord Beaverbrook moved Amendments Nos. 120 and 121.
Page 64, line 33, leave out from ("that") to ("for") in line 34 and insert (", for the purposes specified in the Order, works first published after a date specified in the Order shall not be treated as qualifying").
Page 64, line 40, after ("provision") insert ("for all the purposes of this Part or for such purposes as are specified in the Order, and").
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Clause 154 [Crown copyright]:
Lord Beaverbrook Lord Beaverbrook moved Amendment No. 122:
Page 65, line 17, leave out ("of") and insert ("taken from").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I must say that I am not entirely clear whether this amendment is grouped with that of the noble Lord, Lord Mottistone; namely, Amendment No. 123. However, if the noble Lord does not object, and with the leave of the House, I shall speak to Amendment No. 123 at the same time.
Amendment No. 122 is a drafting amendment. The wording of Clause 5(2) was amended on Report in response to various criticisms which had been voiced in Committee. We should have made a corresponding change in the Crown copyright provision, and that is what my amendment will do.
The more substantial amendment in the group is the one standing in the name of my noble friend Lord
678
Mottistone. It seeks to remove commissioned works from the ambit of Crown copyright so that the Crown would be in the same position as any other commissioner in that it would have to acquire copyright from the author by assignment in cases where it wants copyright. This is a matter that my noble friend raised both in Committee and on Report. He has received some support from noble Lords opposite who expressed misgivings about the extent of Crown copyright, and who, if I have understood them correctly, will welcome any amendment that reduces its scope.
Our debate on Report caused me to give careful thought to the need for a commissioned works provision in Clause 154. I initiated consultations to see whether the Crown would be seriously inconvenienced if the commissioned works provision were to be deleted. In the light of those consultations, I can move on this point and I can accept my noble friend's amendment.
Although the principle underlying the amendment standing in my noble friend's name is plain, the drafting is defective because it removes one word too many. The word "or" at the beginning of the amendment needs to remain in the Bill. For that reason, I cannot accept his amendment, and so I hope he will not press it. I realise that acceptance of his amendment would be an appropriate recognition of his great persistence. But, given my assurance that he has won the day, I hope that he will let the matter rest there. I do not doubt that there will be those in another place who will ensure that the assurances I have given today will be honoured. I would accept a similar amendment to Clause 155. In the meantime, I beg to move.
Lord Mottistone: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend. I am sorry that there was a small error and that we were unable to have a complete triumph in the House. I am sure that our friends in another place will help us. I am grateful for the fact that after this long time my noble friend finds himself able to accept the amendment and, what is more important, the principle behind it. When my turn comes I shall move my amendment. I realise that I cannot do so. What a pity.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, I, too, am grateful to the noble Lord for affording the noble Lord, Lord Mottistone, a partial triumph. The Government have accepted that there are substantial doubts about Crown copyright in the Bill as it is presently drafted. The Government seem to have allowed a breach in that wall. I can assure the Minister that when the Bill goes to another place—if I may have the attention of the Government Front Bench—further attempts will be made to widen that breach to ensure (in so far as we can ensure it) that Crown copyright conforms with what we regard as being the proper principles and is not in blanket form, as it was in the original Bill. We are grateful for the small breach that has occurred.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 123 not moved.]
Clause 158 [Rights and privileges under other enactments or the common law]:
Lord Beaverbrook Lord Beaverbrook moved Amendment No. 124:
Page 67, line 19, at end insert—
("2A) Nothing in this Part affects any rule of law preventing or restricting the enforcement of copyright, on grounds of public interest or otherwise.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I have already spoken to this amendment. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 165 [Minor definitions]:
Lord Beaverbrook Lord Beaverbrook moved Amendment No. 125:
Page 70, line 12, at end insert—
(" "collective work" means—

(a) a work of joint authorship, or

(b) a work in which there are distinct contributions by different authors or in which works or parts of works of different authors are incorporated;").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, I have already spoken to this amendment. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 126 not moved.]
Clause 166 [Index of defined expressions]:
Lord Beaverbrook Lord Beaverbrook moved Amendments Nos. 127 to 129:
Page 71, line 41, at end insert—
("collective work section 165").
Page 72, line 28 [numbered 27], column 2, at end insert ("and 1(A)")
Page 73, line 21 [numbered 19], at end insert—
("work of more than one author section 107(4)") (in Chapter VII).
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I have already spoken to these amendments. I beg to move.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Clause 170 [Infringement of performer's rights by use of recording made without consent]:
Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran moved Amendment No. 130:
Page 74, line 43, at end insert ("but where a recording of the whole or a substantial part of a qualifying performance has been made with the performer's consent then the performer's consent to the making of a copy of that recording for a purpose other than that for which the recording was originally made shall not be unreasonably withheld.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, with the leave of the House I shall speak also to Amendment No. 209 to Schedule 2. The object is to deal with the problem which I think I described on Report as the tenth spear; that is, the one recalcitrant performer in a minor role whose withholding of a consent can prevent the exploitation of a recording of a large-scale television drama and jeopardise the possibility of further remuneration to other members of the cast. That is the sole object of these amendments.
It is accepted that a performer should have the absolute right to authorise or refuse consent to the making of the first recording. It is also accepted that a performer has the right, on reasonable grounds, to refuse consent to further exploitation. But the BBC, in particular, feels strongly that once the first
680
recording has been authorised the performer should not be entitled to refuse consent, without reasonable grounds for doing so, to further exploitation. I beg to move.
Lord Beaverbrook: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran, has returned to a question about performer's consent which he raised on Report. The issue is whether broadcasters and cable operators should have to have the consent of performers when they want to make copies of authorised recordings for purposes of repeat broadcasting, cable distribution, or perhaps for marketing to other broadcasters. It is another issue that we have been discussing further with broadcasters since the Report stage.
Your Lordships may recall that I said then that we would consider what might be done if, on examination, the exception to performers' rights contained in Schedule 2 paragraph 12 turned out to be inadequate. On consideration we have come to the conclusion that the exception contained in Schedule 2 does not after all provide a sufficient answer to broadcasters' needs. I am therefore happy to accept in principle that an amendment along the lines proposed by the noble Lord is necessary. I am afraid that we shall want to reflect a little further on the wording. We shall therefore have to return to the matter in another place. I hope that in the light of my assurance the noble Lord will be willing to withdraw the amendment at this stage.
Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran: My Lords, I am grateful that the noble Lord is sympathetic to the problems of broadcasters, and upon his assurance, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 174 [Infringement of recording rights by use of recording made without consent]:
Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran moved Amendment No. 131:
Page 76, line 6, at end insert ("or that of the performer").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, the amendment is summarised as being a rectification of bootleg recordings. I am advised that where a recording has been made without the consent of a performer or the recording company, Clause 174, as drafted, requires that if the BBC, for instance, wishes to broadcast the recording the consent of the recording company must be obtained.
By contrast, Clause 173, which deals with the making of a recording of a performance in relation to which a recording company has recording rights, provides that the maker of the recording can obtain consent from one or other of the performers or the recording company. It is therefore difficult to see what justification there is for the distinction between the two clauses. As the legislation confers upon performers and recording companies the same rights in relation to performances before the commencement of the new legislation as in relation to those taking place after, a broadcaster may be unable to locate the relevant recording company which may by now be defunct to obtain the consent for the

681
broadcast of a perhaps unique recording of a performance. I beg to move.
Lord Beaverbrook: My Lords, the noble Lord's amendment deals with a point which has recently been drawn to our attention by the BBC. If a broadcaster has made a recording of a concert and has inadvertently failed to obtain the consent of all the performers, then exploiting that recording may infringe not only the rights of those performers but also the rights of those with whom they have exclusive recording contracts. If the broadcaster wants to rectify the situation, he will, as matters stand under the Bill, be obliged to obtain the consent of the recording company.
The purpose of the noble Lord's amendment is to provide that it will be a sufficient alternative to obtain the consent of the performer. I must point out that in the circumstances envisaged by the BBC it is the person with recording rights rather than the performer whose economic interests are affected.
We cannot accept the amendment as it stands, but we shall look further at the matter and if necessary return to it in another place. It may be that in a case in which the performer also had his own rights, his consent alone would suffice. But if the performer had no rights himself, it would be of no concern to him that the recording company might be adversely affected. Therefore, the performer's consent should not suffice. In other words, the performer's consent should suffice only in the case of qualifying performances. I hope that in the light of my assurance the noble Lord may be able to withdraw his amendment at this stage.
Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran: My Lords, I am very grateful to the noble Lord for the attention that he has given to this matter. In view of his assurances I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
The Earl of Dundee: My Lords, your Lordships may consider that we have reached a suitable moment to break in order to return to the subject in an hour's time at 8.30. If so, I beg to move that the further proceedings after Third Reading be now adjourned.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
Housing Benefit (General) Amendment Regulations 1988
Housing Benefit (Supply of Information) Regulations 1988
Social Security (Payments on account, Overpayments and Recovery) Regulations 1988
Income Support (General) Amendment Regulations 1988
Family Credit (General) Amendment Regulations 1988
7.30 p.m.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health and Social Security (Lord Skelmersdale): My Lords, I beg to move the first
682
Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper. I shall try hard not to confuse the noble Baroness, Lady Jeger, as much as I unfortunately did yesterday. However, as all the Motions in my name on the Order Paper today are what I might describe as pure social security amendment regulations, I trust that the House will allow me to speak to all of them at once and in due course to move them en bloc, as has been noted on today's Order Paper.
The first three regulations contain a number of amendments to regulations which were debated and approved by the House in November last year, setting out the detailed rules for the introduction of the new income support, family credit and housing benefit schemes from April. Your Lordships will be well aware of the background to the income related benefit changes and will therefore be relieved that I do not intend to rehearse again tonight the reasons underlying them. Most of the changes in the amendment regulations are necessary to correct minor or technical deficiencies in the original set.
One aspect of this block of amendment regulations will however find special favour with the House. It enables any income or capital received from the Macfarlane Trust, set up to help haemophiliacs who are unfortunately HIV positive, to be ignored completely in assessing a person's entitlement to income support, family credit or housing benefit. The most notable part of these is that claimants will not be required to declare receipt of any such payments to the department or their local housing authorities. I am sure that the country as a whole will particularly welcome this move, which will help to keep the individual's conditions confidential.
I should perhaps mention at this point that the Government will in due course be bringing forward similar amending regulations to disregard payments from the Independent Living Fund which, as the House will know, will enable severely disabled people on low incomes to employ help in order that they may live independently in their own homes. These are people who are in the unfortunate position of being disadvantaged if by some mischance they should become seriously disabled or their circumstances change for the worse after the new social security arrangements are brought into effect. Other amendments in this set of regulations are consequential to the 1986 Act.
The House will also be interested in housing benefit. The Housing Benefit (General) Amendment Regulations contain provisions to enable local authorities, in the still unlikely event for many, to make payments on account of housing benefit where they are unable to assess claims properly under the new scheme after 1st April. This temporary provision will run for only three months, that is until 30th June. The regulations also enable local authorities to issue short-term notices of determination for the same three-month period. I should however like to point out that from our latest information I expect only a very small proportion of local authorities, for a variety of reasons, actually to have to use these provisions.
The Housing Benefit (Supply of Information) Regulations 1988 which are also before us tonight deal with the information which is to be exchanged

683
between the department and the local authorities, in accordance with Section 31(1) and (2) of the Social Security Act 1986. In detail, these regulations provide for local authorities to be supplied with information from the Department of Health and Social Security about the outcome of claims for income support and also for local authorities to be notified when entitlement to income support ceases. Local authorities will also be supplied with information necessary to calculate and recover overpayments of housing benefit. These regulations simply continue the arrangements which already apply under the existing schemes.
Moving on to the draft Social Security (Payments on account, Overpayments and Recovery) Regulations, I should say that one of the objectives of the Social Security Act 1986 was to provide a common framework for the administration of benefits. Previously many of the benefits had slightly different rules, each set down in its own set of regulations. The recovery of overpayments was one area where we provided for a single test—that of misrepresentation or failure to disclose a material fact. In 1987, regulations bearing the same title as the present draft provided the new common rules for overpayments and recoveries for all benefits and included interim payments—that is, payments on account of benefit when, for a variety of reasons, we may not be able to process a claim but the person needs to be paid quickly.
I should also like to draw your Lordships' attention to Part 8 of these regulations, which lays down the manner in which the recovery from earnings of income support payments for the first 15 days following a trade dispute shall take place.
Taken together, these five sets of regulations complete the detailed preparations for a fundamental reform of the income-related benefits system. The change will achieve a clearer and more coherent system which will be easier for claimants and staff to understand and which will focus help more effectively on those groups most in need. The regulations we are debating tonight complete the final link in this chain. I commend them to the House.
Moved, That the draft Housing Benefit (General) Amendment Regulations 1988 laid before the House on 14th March [20th Report from the Joint Committee]; Housing Benefit (Supply of Information) Regulations 1988 laid before the House on 14th March [20th Report from the Joint Committee]; Social Security (Payments on account, Overpayments and Recovery) Regulations 1988 laid before the House on 7th March [20th Report, from the Joint Committee]; Income Support (General) Amendment Regulations 1988 laid before the House on 16th March [20th Report from the Joint Committee]; and Family Credit (General) Amendment Regulations 1988 laid before the House on 16th March [20th Report from the Joint Committee] be approved—(Lord Skelmersdale.)
Baroness Jeger: My Lords, we appreciate that all the regulations should be taken together. However, the most important element in the Motions concerns housing benefit. I am glad to see that the noble Lord
684
is talking about all these matters tonight. I am also very glad that my noble friend Lord Stallard is with us and that he has recovered after surgery and attention at the Westminster Hospital. I am sure that my pleasure at his recovery is shared by all noble Lords.
There are several problems about these regulations. I appreciate what the noble Lord is trying to do. However, we are trying to work out how we can deal with disabled people who will not get any help under the new system. The citizens' advice bureaux have said today that they believe that under the new system more people are going to be worse off than are going to be better off. People will have to pay water rates, which they did not have to pay before. That makes it very difficult for us to see whether the Government's policy will help the poorest people or whether it will make life more difficult for them.
I know that we cannot deal with these things by a vote tonight but I have to say that I think we are not making it clear in this House that the Government really care about the poorest people.
I have a cutting from The Times which states that sick and disabled people:
"stand to lose by up to £18 a week under the new social security reforms".
When we are asked to deal with these matters tonight it is very difficult for us to see where the regulations relate to the facts of the situation. All I can say tonight on behalf of my noble friends is that we do not approve of these regulations and that we hope at some time that there might be some reconsideration.
Lord Banks: My Lords, the House is indebted once again to the noble Lord, Lord Skelmersdale, for his explanation on this occasion of no fewer than five sets of regulations. The regulations complete the framework for the new regime which comes into force next week. The House may think that they do so just in the nick of time.
The noble Lord will be aware that we on these Benches have many criticisms and many anxieties about that new regime. The Government say that two-thirds of claimants will be better off; but of course that was challenged by the benefits research unit at the University of Nottingham when it set out its view in the Guardian on 24th February. It reckoned that 60 per cent. of those changing from supplementary benefit to income support will be worse off.
Yesterday the Department of Social and Administrative Studies at Oxford University was reported as saying that in its view 75 per cent. of claimants would be worse off. Today as the noble Baroness, Lady Jeger, has said, the National Association of Citizens' Advice Bureaux has issued the results of a survey which it conducted of 80 of its cases in an area of the country chosen at random. That would seem to indicate that as regards the sick and disabled there are five times more losers than gainers; five out of six sick people would be worse off if this survey is an indication of what is going to happen. And 70 per cent. of able-bodied pensioners would also be worse off. It is responsible people who are saying these things. So it is no wonder that we have anxieties.

685
These regulations, as the noble Lord said, make a number of comparatively minor changes to the regulations approved last year. He mentioned in particular three of the orders dealing with income supplement, family credit and housing benefit respectively which provide for payments from the Macfarlane Trust to be disregarded. That is welcome as is the maintenance of confidentiality with regard to those payments.
I should like to ask the Minister about the Independent Living Trust which has been established in order to provide help for the very severely disabled. I understand that payments made from that trust are also to be disregarded. Can the Minister say when provisions for that will come before Parliament?
The provisions for the exchange of information for housing benefit purposes between the Department of Health and Social Security and local authorities appear sensible as does the provision to allow local authorities to calculate housing benefit on a rough and ready basis for the first three months.
But I am concerned about two points with regard to that. First, I understand that some formula is to be followed that should prevent any significant overpayments. I should like to know more about that if the noble Lord can enlighten us. It does seem that a claimant may have no idea that he is being overpaid and may be faced with the difficult problem of the repayment of a considerable sum. Will the noble Lord say how that is to be avoided?
My second point relates to the noble Lord's statement that he expects only a very small number of local authorities to be unable to proceed on the proper basis next week. It is encouraging to hear him say that but it runs in the face of a lot of information that has been conveyed in the press and indeed in the debate on this subject in another place where it was variously suggested that 17 per cent. of local authorities, 101 out of 281 local authorities or even 50 per cent. of local authorities might not be ready. There has been talk in the newspapers of possible chaos. Can the noble Lord give us a little more information about that and say perhaps how many local authorities he anticipates will not be able to proceed on the proper basis next week and will have to use the rough and ready method of calculation? Is it not a fact that the local authorities have been put in a very difficult position owing to the late production of the regulations with only some five months to work on the changes?
Turning from housing benefit, when we discussed the Unemployment Benefit (Disqualification Period) Order 1988 dealing with disqualification for unemployment benefit because of voluntary unemployment, we made it clear that we saw no reason to extend the maximum period from 13 to 26 weeks. We said this because small numbers were involved, the last doubling of the maximum period had had no effect and there was evidence to suggest that the maximum length of disqualification was not in fact known to those affected who were not deterred by it. Of course there was the fact that those disqualified, if they qualified for supplementary benefit, had it reduced by 40 per cent.
The Income Support (General) Amendment Regulations 1988 contain the consequential and
686
similar extension of the maximum period for the 40 per cent. reduction of income support. We object to that on the same grounds as we objected to the extension of the unemployment benefit disqualification maximum period and on the additional ground of the increased cumulative hardship caused by so long a period of curtailment of what is after all a subsistence benefit.
In conclusion, I wish to ask the noble Lord if he can give any indication of how many persons the Government estimate will be reliant on means-tested benefits once the new income related system is in force? The new system brings help to some on benefit by taking away from others on benefit. It takes from the poor to give to the poorer at a time when large sums are made available through tax cuts to the top 5 per cent. of earners.
I believe that the movement to greater reliance on means-tested benefits exemplified by the switch of resources this year from child benefit to family credit is retrogressive. The alternative is not a bolstering of the status quo. It is to move in the direction of a tax credit scheme designed to take people off means-tested benefits.
Lord Kilmarnock: My Lords, we also would like to thank the noble Lord, Lord Skelmersdale, for steering us rapidly through these five sets of regulations. We certainly welcome the concessions that he has indicated in respect of the Macfarlane Trust to the haemophiliacs and also the Independent Living Trust Fund.
The whole new regime that the Government are bringing into operation caused considerable disquiet on these Benches when it was first introduced. I do not think that disquiet has diminished at all as implementation draws nearer and nearer. Confusion has been sown in the public mind to a serious extent as to how people are going to be affected. I should like to ask the noble Lord whether he can tell the House what the Government are doing in the field of information to offset rumours and clarify the position of people who are going to be worse off under the new arrangements.
It seems to me that there is a particular area of concern as regards the poorest pensioners. It is calculated that many of them will be in the region of £3 or £4 a week worse off. There is also a serious area of concern as regards part-time workers who will fail to qualify under the new income support scheme if they work for 24 hours a week or more, as against the current limit of 30 hours. I understand that there are around 15,000 part-time workers who will lose the right to claim supplementary benefit and/or income support. Perhaps the Minister will comment on that matter.
I believe that I am right in saying that a large number of those people will be single parents. That group will lose out badly when the new arrangements are in operation. One of the causes of that deterioration in their situation will be the lack of transitional protection for those on housing benefit. The noble Lord, Lord Stallard, who is an expert in that area, will doubtless be talking about housing benefit. Therefore, I shall not go into that matter.

687
However, I should like to hear from the noble Lord whether the Government have any plans to revise the transitional arrangements for housing benefit. I understand that the Minister's honourable friend, Mr. Scott, acknowledged in the media today that there were serious difficulties and anomalies arising from the new arrangements. However, that is hearsay and I am not sure what commitment, if any, he made to look into the ways of alleviating the transitional difficulties. Perhaps the noble Lord will say more on that subject.
Lord Stallard: My Lords, I should like to join those who have congratulated the Minister on his introduction of the regulations this evening. I should also like to agree with my noble friend Lady Jeger in her remarks on income support and family credit, and with the other noble Lords who have spoken.
I am mainly concerned with the housing benefit regulations. I believe that it is worth spending a few minutes on those matters because this will be our last opportunity to do so. I should have agreed wholeheartedly with the noble Lord, Lord Banks, had I been present last night when he raised the question of the Guardian advertisement. That concerned proceedings in Parliament. Before both Houses had agreed the regulations, they were published elsewhere. Have the Government or the Minister raised any objection with the Guardian as regards the advertisement? It seems to have been a bit arrogant. If no protest was made, that is even worse because it makes it appear that other people are agreeing with it.
Given the background and circumstances, as well as the fact that we do not have as much time as we should like, I shall not go too deeply into the first set of regulations and the supply of information. I recognise that, given the circumstances, the supply of information will be necessary. Local authorities and other organisations, as well as the Secretary of State, will need liasion on the subject of information. I hope that the liaison between the government departments such as the DHSS, the DoE and others is better than it has been up to now. I have found it difficult to get the same kind of information from two departments on the same issue. There is room for improvement.
Having said that, I think that there is nothing we can do about that matter at the moment. Therefore, turning to the other amendments to the regulations, I join with those who have welcomed the exemption of payments under the Macfarlane Trust. I congratulate the Government on their response to the concerns expressed on all sides of both Houses about the treatment of payments to haemophiliacs and the provision which the Government have made for them in the regulations. That is to be generally welcomed.
Concerning the other regulations before us, the Minister in another place described the housing benefit regulations as tidying-up regulations and said that they would deal with two minor matters. The Minister has this evening referred to minor matters to be dealt with by the regulations. Having read them and thought about them, I believe that it would be more accurate to say that they deal with major
688
matters; namely, the miscalculation of the time required for implementation of the new scheme and a gross underestimation of the burden on local authorities in the timescale allowed and with the scarcity of finance for the task. Those are major matters.
Those of us who attend social security debates will recall the chaos that followed upon the introduction of the current housing benefit scheme in 1982–83. The first six months were plagued with problems of widespread delays in payments, errors in assessment, computer breakdowns leading to arrears and even some evictions of bewildered tenants. Local authority staff and voluntary organisations were confused and overstretched. Claimants were even more confused and ill-informed. That is relevant to our discussions tonight because we are now in almost the same situation.
So widespread were the delays and the misunderstandings on the first occasion that transitional arrangements had to be introduced twice to extend the implementation of the scheme, and the final date of transfer to the new scheme had to be deferred until December 1983—nearly 18 months after the passing of the Act. Now we are once again discussing transitional arrangements before a new scheme is implemented.
After the passing of that Act, some local authorities had still not been able to complete the necessary arrangements. There was a huge backlog of cases. We were all aware in our own local authorities of the number of cases which built up. There were literally millions of such cases which were left to be resolved. Some of them are not yet fully and satisfactorily resolved because of the delays. It was The Times which described the implementation as being the biggest administrative fiasco in the history of the welfare state. Now we have a new set of regulations.
It is also interesting to recall the reaction of the government spokesman at that time to the criticisms. The problems were described as teething difficulties. Perhaps that is the same as saying "minor problems". The Government said that the problems would disappear once the scheme had settled down and that there was nothing to worry about. The Secretary of State claimed at the time that out of 500 local authorities only 15 were experiencing difficulties in June 1983. A month later, he was forced to admit that 100 local authorities were still in trouble with the scheme. Now we are almost back in the same situation.
I have mentioned those matters because I think they are relevant. I believe that it does noble Lords good to draw parallels between the circumstances which existed then—we all objected in those debates—and the present circumstances. Remembering the introduction of these regulations outlining more transitional arrangements for local authorities which will not be able to implement them by the effective date, the remarks of the Minister in another place, the remarks of the Minister in this House which I mentioned a moment ago, the previous fiasco and this Government's record for ill thought out and panicky legislation on social security, to which we have all referred from time to

689
time, I think that we on these Benches are entitled to be a hit sceptical about the almost complaisant approach that the Government are taking towards the regulations.
For a variety of reasons, mainly a shortage of staff and resources and difficulties with computer software, about 17 per cent. of local authorities will not be ready for the April deadline and may not even be ready for the deadline beyond April. That is not a minor affair. It is estimated that 1 million cases will be affected. There is nothing minor about 1 million cases when the hardship and deprivation caused by these problems is known. It is a serious problem.
Those delays cannot be attributed to local authorities. The very fact that the regulations are before us is an admission of the Government's failure to provide the extra funds and the extra time and to make provision in the legislation and in the regulations with which we dealt last November. The fact that these regulations had to come before us is an admission of failure on the part of the Government. They can no longer dodge the problem and leave it to local authorities. It is up to the Government to reimburse local authorities for the expenditure incurred as a result of this whole rushed exercise.
Local authorities have estimated expenditure of £46 million for the transition to the new scheme. The government grant will be about £25 million, which is just over half that figure. That is totally inadequate and does not take account of the extra burden that is being placed on the authorities by the transitional arrangements.
I know that my local authority is not the most popular in this House. It is popular to the extent that almost every noble Lord is an expert on Camden. More quotations are made about Camden on all kinds of issues than about any other local authority. Perhaps we should be glad that we are internationally famous and have been quoted on television thousands of times. Such references are never very complimentary.
I should like to congratulate Camden's housing benefits section on being one of the few that hopes to be ready. In fact Camden was one of the few that was ready for the last debacle in 1983. It is ready only because it was prepared. It knew of the difficulties that would be caused to ordinary tenants and other people if it was not ready. It has been prepared to feed in staff to work extra hours and overtime and to do the calculations by hand if the computer was not functioning or the software was not available. Camden has been doing just that up until now. It deserves credit for its efforts and some recompense, as do all the other local authorities that are perhaps doing the same, for the added expenditure incurred in trying to put right the Government's failure in this regard. I hope that the noble Lord will be able to give an assurance that the Government will look again at the expenditure being incurred by local authorities.
It is emerging already from information which I hope will be supplied to the Government that two out of every three claimants in Camden will lose money as a result of the new scheme. There is nothing minor about that. Nationally, the figures are quite horrific and frightening to anybody who really cares about the deprivation that will arise as a result of the losses
690
under the new schemes. The article in The Times yesterday has already been mentioned. It says:
"More than four million people will have benefit payments cut in real terms because of social security reforms which start to come into effect on April 4, according to an analysis by independent researchers. The Policy Studies Institute, which has based its research on Department of Health and Social Security figures, also says that in spite of government claims that they will save nothing from the changes, the reforms will raise £545 million, mainly from cutting housing benefits. The losers, representing 48 per cent. of the 8·6 million claimants, include more than two million pensioners, 830,000 unemployed families and 73,000 working families. Many could lose up to £12 a week, the institute says".
This is the last chance we have before these regulations are implemented to remind ourselves and the Government of the position. I have three examples from Camden of how people will be affected. I could quote many more. They are typical of what will happen as a result of the implementation of the regulations. The first concerns a claimant, a lone, grandparent pensioner, who is bringing up her deceased daughter's child. Her total income is £98·22, made up of state pension, a small private pension and child benefit. Under the new calculations she will lose £13·08. No one in her circumstances can afford to lose £13·08.
The second example is a claimant who is a lone pensioner aged 77. She has a state pension of £41·15. She earns £17 a week from a part-time job. Under the new regulations she will lose £7·89 of the benefit that she has been receiving up until now. That is a large loss for a woman in her circumstances. The third example concerns a youngster. Young people and the very old have been attacked by almost everything the Government have done in social security. The examples I have given are typical of groups. There will be thousands like them in those groups.
The youngster is 18 years old and is in full-time work. Her take-home pay is £53·47. Her previous entitlement was £14 a week. Her entitlement under the new scheme is £1·48. She will lose £12·52 a week. Those are typical examples of three different groups of people who will lose as a result of the implementation of the new allowances and the housing benefits scheme.
There is no transitional arrangement for the housing benefit scheme. There is for the others—but not for housing benefits. I hope the Minister will be able to tell me that I am wrong, and that there will be. At the moment I understand that there is none.
I should like to ask the Minister for further clarification of the point that was raised by the noble Lord, Lord Kilmarnock. He asked about overpayment. The regulations which we debated last November—and they were also debated in another place—provided, as has always been the case, that local authorities could not recover an overpayment where it occurred through official error and where the claimant had no way of knowing that he or she had been overpaid. That had always been the position. However, it would appear that under the new regulations the local authority will have powers, even if it has committed an official error during the transitional period up to 30th June, to recover the overpayment from the claimants. The regulations give that power to the local authorities. Perhaps the Minister will clarify that point.

691
Am I right in thinking that this is a departure from previous practice? What are the exact details? Does the Minister know how many tenants will be acquainted with that probability? How will they be acquainted with it and how will they check? Is it the department's intention to publish a book of guidance, instructions or information for the use of tenants so that they can check these matters, know the workings of the regulations and know how they are likely to be affected? If that is not done I do not see how thousands, perhaps millions, of people will know whether or not they have been overpaid or by how much. They may get into serious trouble if they carry on budgeting as they have been budgeting in regard to their previous allowances.
So I should like the Minister to give us further information on how tenants will be acquainted with these arrangements. I hope that he will not just say that it is up to the local authority, because it has already been demonstrated that local authorities cannot afford to do now the tasks which have been loaded on to them. It is up to the department to make some information available to the tenants.
Finally, much as I would have liked to vote against these regulations because, as I have said, in the main they are an attempt to put right the failures and miscalculations of the Government in the original Bill and the original regulations, we cannot do so tonight. But we on this side of the House are still opposed to the new scheme and the scheme which fathered this one. I certainly am still opposed to it, as I always have been. I am convinced that when the effects of this latest pernicious legislation become more widely apparent there will be many more demands for debate and further argument, especially when it becomes generally known that many of those millions of people who will be worse off are youngsters who are already struggling to exist on low wages; and that there will be many elderly people who have exercised thrift, and been encouraged by the Government to exercise thrift, who have prudently saved for their old age and who will now find that they will lose their entitlement entirely because of having a nest-egg put by for their retirement. I think that there will be demands from all quarters for more discussion on this question and I look forward to such a debate in the very near future.
8.15 p.m.
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, I am grateful to all noble Lords who have spoken on these five orders this evening. Perhaps I may say straight away how pleased we are to see the noble Lord, Lord Stallard, back in his place and obviously fighting fit.
To noble Lords generally I admit that the basis of these orders has been controversial in the past, and it is quite clear from today's short debate that it is still controversial. However, I submit that this matter has been thoroughly discussed in earlier debates, notably the debate that took place on what is now the Social Security Act 1986. I do not believe that these changes are pernicious, as the noble Lord, Lord Stallard, suggested. They follow an intention that has been set out ever since the publication of the Green Paper on this subject. There is an intentional targeting of the
692
mammoth resources available. There is no hiding of skeletons in closets or anything like that about this matter.
I now turn to the individual points that have been raised during our discussion. The noble Lord, Lord Banks, asked me how many recipients of income-related benefits there will be once the reforms are introduced. That is a very good starting point for my response. Figures on the total number of benefit recipients must by definition be imprecise because of multiple receipt of a number of income-related benefits. There is no change in that under either the existing or future provisions. However, in broad terms we estimate that about 8 million people are presently in receipt of these benefits and that between 6½million and 7 million will be in receipt of benefits when the new system is fully implemented. A little later I shall explain why that is so.
The noble Lords, Lord Kilmarnock, Lord Banks and Lord Stallard, raised the question of an inadequate time for preparation, especially in regard to the new scheme of housing benefit. We made no secret about it. We always recognised and appreciated the heavy demands that the preparation for the changes placed on local authorities and DHSS local offices. Originally we intended to lay regulations before the House in mid-April last year, but as the House knows well, because we reported this matter to it, our legal advice was that we could not do so without including the final benefit rates. Obviously, that was not possible until the September retail prices index became available on 9th October. The moment that it became available we acted as quickly as we possibly could and as parliamentary time allowed. I do not believe that we were laggards in that respect.
The noble Baroness, Lady Jeger, and the noble Lord, Lord Banks, raised the question of the newly disabled who claim after April. I personally would have preferred to combine their disregard into the relevant orders that we are discussing this evening. Unfortunately, there just was not time because in the queue as it was the Macfarlane Trust came slightly earlier than the fund and regrettably there were drafting difficulties because of other legislation. Therefore it was impossible to combine the two for the order tonight.
I believe that our record for helping the sick and the disabled is very good indeed. Overall spending on benefits for the long-term sick and disabled under pension age now amounts to £6·75 billion a year, which is an increase of 80 per cent. over the lifetime of this Government. Under income support some 85 per cent. of the sick and disabled will gain or be unaffected by the reforms. As regards the question of when the provisions for the disregard of payments for the Independent Living Fund will come before your Lordships, I can say that we are in the process of determining the terms of that fund and the nomination of trustees. Once those matters have been completed we propose to bring the regulations before Parliament, which I hope will be in a matter of weeks.
The noble Baroness, Lady Jeger, raised another point on income support with special reference to water charges. The income support personal allowances take account of the supplementary benefit expenditure on water charges. However, I admit

693
straight away that they are not separately identified—a point which alerted the noble Baroness. This change meets one of the aims of the reformed scheme; namely, to encourage self-reliance by providing a system of support which, so far as possible, leaves claimants free to manage their own financial affairs.
Several noble Lords have zeroed in on recent criticisms of the various reforms from very eminent bodies. The noble Baroness, Lady Jeger, mentioned the citizens' advice bureaux and another noble Lord, possibly the noble Lord, Lord Banks, mentioned the study by the Policy Studies Institute. I believe that there is a basic misunderstanding in the comments of all those eminent commentators. They have all underplayed the spending on transitional protection.
I point out straight away to the noble Lord, Lord Stallard, that there is no transitional protection for housing benefit because one of the objectives is to remove the payment of that benefit from people who have higher amounts of capital and to target it on those people who have lower amounts of capital. That ensures that under income support virtually all the present supplementary benefit claimants will receive just as much money as they do now. It is misleading to apply average single payments figures for all income support families with children in the way that the Policy Studies Institute has done, for example, since the available evidence suggests that two-thirds of such families do not receive such payments.
I also believe that it is misleading to use estimated single payments figures which predate the necessary changes made in 1986 and 1987. Noble Lords will remember a speech on this subject made by my noble friend Lady Faithfull at the Committee stage of the recent Social Security Bill. For the reasons given then by my noble friend it is particularly misleading to assume that any government would have allowed the growth in single payments prior to 1986 to continue unchecked.
I think that it was the noble Lord, Lord Kilmarnock, who commented that 15,000 part-time workers will lose their right to claim supplementary benefit or income support because of the 24-hour rule. I must confess that there are no official estimates of the numbers of people who may be working part time. The CAB figures therefore must rest on speculation. Almost nine out of 10 lone patents receiving benefit when the new income support scheme is introduced will have an increase or no change in their benefit income after they have paid their housing costs. For married couples the figure is 92 per cent.
Furthermore, the reforms help single parents to work by easing the amount that they can earn without affecting their income support payments from £12 a week up to £15 a week. While child care costs will no longer be specifically disregarded in this way, the evidence suggests that this helped only a minority of single parents on supplementary benefit. The higher £15 rule will help them all and for those working more than 24 hours a week the new, more generous, family credit will be available.
694
The noble Lord, Lord Banks, returned to a subject that we have discussed over recent weeks; namely, the voluntary unemployment deduction period. I do not think that I can do better than to repeat what I said then. The extension keeps the deduction period in step with the period for which the claimant is disqualified for unemployment benefit, and for the same reason. It is not equitable to pay a person who has brought about his own unemployment the same as one who is unemployed for reasons beyond his control.
The consequence of the unemployment benefit disqualification period order being brought over into income support by extending the maximum period of voluntary unemployment deduction from 13 to 26 weeks is obviously pertinent to what I have just said. The 40 per cent. deduction from the personal rate of income support is a sanction that has existed for many years. It serves the same dual purpose of encouragement to act responsibly and a penalty for disqualification for unemployment benefit. If there are others in the claimant's household there is no reduction in benefit for them. The deduction applies only to the amount for the claimant. It is modified to a rate of 20 per cent. where there is a pregnant or seriously ill person in the family and the claimant's capital is not more than £200.
All noble Lords were concerned with the notification to claimants about these payments. The noble Lord, Lord Banks, was interested in overpayments especially, as I understand it, in the realm of housing benefit. Guidance is issued to all local authorities and that will ensure that if followed in at least 90 per cent. of the cases the money will not be overpaid. Those amounts that are overpaid will generally be small. Regulations ensure that claimants are notified at the time payments are made that they are payments on account and that an overpayment will be recovered and underpayments will be reimbursed.
The noble Lords, Lord Kilmarnock and Lord Stallard, raised the question of the money we have allocated to local authorities for setting up the new housing benefit scheme. The total sum of £25 million provides a very reasonable level of support when viewed in relation to local authorities' current administration costs and workload and compared with the total sum of £20 million spent on introducing the current scheme. Although we asked for it, there was no convincing evidence from local authorities' estimates of likely costs that the £25 million was inadequate. I am therefore rather surprised to hear the noble Lord, Lord Stallard, suggest at this late stage that it is inadequate. Estimates for items of expenditure such as staffing varied so widely that we concluded that some authorities had allowed a safe margin of error in their calculations. It was also clear that not all the costs envisaged by authorities were necessitated by the reforms.
We ought to remember that in 1983 the basis of the changes was slightly different from those that we are considering this evening. The objective then was to move payments from the department's local offices to local authorities. The noble Lords, Lord Banks and Lord Stallard, asked how many local authorities will not be able to implement the reformed housing benefit on 1st April. In other words, they picked up

695
what I said earlier. I believe that the various press reports that the noble Lord, Lord Banks, quoted—reports that there will be chaos on 1st April—are totally inaccurate. In response to a questionnaire issued by my department, less than 10 per cent. have indicated that they will not implement fully on 1st April. Even this is a gross overestimate. My officials have visited authorities up and down the country and have not come across any, or indeed heard of any, who will not be in a position to pay benefit either under the new scheme or the arrangements debated tonight.
On the question of authorites not being given enough time to implement the scheme, I have already mentioned the consultations with local authority associations. I would add that these have been continuing for over 18 months. Authorities asked for a year to implement the new scheme. Draft regulations were issued to authorities in May 1987, only six weeks late. The next final regulations issued in November 1987 did not differ significantly from draft regulations issued in May. Those were the ones, as I have just told the House, that legal advice suggested would not be in a suitable and fair form to put before Parliament. Visits by senior officials have confirmed that the vast majority of local authorities are in a considerably better position than they were in 1983.
I should like to finish by commenting briefly on the housing benefit reforms and the capital rule. I know that this will be repetition but I have a few seconds left and I should like to make the comment for the benefit of those noble Lords both inside and outside the Chamber. We have changed the housing benefit capital rule because we want to be consistent across the three income-related benefits. The new cut-off point of £6,000 is double the current supplementary benefit limit of £3,000. Our policy is to give help to those most in need. Your Lordships may well be as amazed and as alarmed as I was to discover that at present one can be in receipt of housing benefit with £25,000 sitting in a current account. This cannot be right and indeed does not make sense. The better off should use their own resources before receiving help from public funds. That is exactly what public funds are for.
The new rule is beneficial for those with small savings because of the increase from the £3,000 limit to £6,000 limit. The only losers are those with large amounts. I do not believe that this is penalising thrift. We have sought to strike, and I believe have succeeded in striking, a careful balance between the need to ensure that money goes only to those who need it and the need not to penalise thrift. People do not have to spend all their capital before they become entitled to benefit. If people's savings dip below £6,000 they will become entitled to benefit, only providing that the money has not been used extravagantly but has been spent on reasonable day-to-day living expenses. It is ridiculous for the Opposition to talk about this Government penalising thrift. Under the last Labour Administration pensioners saw the value of their savings destroyed to a very large extent through inflation.
Staff in the department and local authorities have made tremendous efforts over the last two years to
696
ensure that the benefits are successfully implemented. New computer systems have been developed. Detailed instructions have been prepared. Revised forms and leaflets have been printed and thousands of staff trained on the new systems. Advertising campaigns have been undertaken in regional and national press to draw attention to the income support and housing benefit changes. We have this week launched a major press and television campaign on family credit. That is the final point that I had not answered. On that basis, I commend en bloc the Motions standing in my name on the Order Paper.
On Question, Motions agreed to.

Copyright, Designs and Patents Bill [H.L.]
8.30 p.m.
Proceedings after Third Reading resumed.
Clause 176 [Duration of rights]:
Lord Beaverbrook Lord Beaverbrook moved Amendment No. 132:
Page 76, line 39, leave out subsection (2).
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I have already spoken to this amendment. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 177 [Transmission of rights]:
Lord Beaverbrook Lord Beaverbrook moved Amendments Nos. 133 and 134:
Page 76, line 46, leave out ("expire") and insert ("are exercisable by his personal representatives.").
Page 77, line 10, at end insert—
("(5) Any damages recovered by personal representatives by virtue of this section in respect of an infringement after a person's death shall devolve as part of his estate as if the right of action had subsisted and been vested in him immediately before his death.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I have already spoken to these amendments. I beg to move.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Clause 181 [Right to seize illicit recordings]:
Lord Beaverbrook Lord Beaverbrook moved Amendment No. 135:
Page 77, line 42, leave out paragraph (b) and insert—
("(b) that at the time when any recording is seized the person by whom it is seized leaves at the place where it is 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.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I have already spoken to this amendment. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 183 [Forfeiture of illicit recordings]:
Lord Beaverbrook Lord Beaverbrook moved Amendment No. 136:
Page 79, line 45, leave out ("district or").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Elvel, moved an identical amendment at Committee stage in respect of what is now Clause 101, which is the corresponding clause in Part I. He said he had been advised by his noble friend Lord Morton of Shuna that the district court

697
was not an appropriate place to deal with the matters in question. In that he was right, and I readily accepted his amendment. This amendment is necessary in Clause 183 for the same reason. I beg to move.
Lord Morton of Shuna: My Lords, it is very nice to come into the Chamber and be told that I was right. I thank the noble Lord for this amendment.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 193 [Expressions having same meaning as in copyright provisions]:
Lord Beaverbrook Lord Beaverbrook moved Amendment No. 137:
Page 83, line 25, after ("delivery") insert ("up").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving this amendment I speak also to Amendments Nos. 138 and 139. These are minor drafting improvements or corrections which do not involve matters of substance. The references to judicial and parliamentary proceedings in Clause 193 are not needed since these expressions are not used in Part II but only in Schedule 2 where the necessary references to meanings as in Part I appear in the appropriate paragraphs. The amendment to line 25 corrects a drafting error and makes Clause 193 consistent with Clause 194. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Beaverbrook Lord Beaverbrook moved Amendments Nos. 138 and 139:
Page 83, leave out line 27.
Page 83, leave out line 29.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I have spoken to these amendments. I beg to move.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Clause 194 [Index of defined expressions]:
Lord Beaverbrook Lord Beaverbrook moved Amendment No. 140:
Page 84, line 8, column 2, after ("193") insert ("(1)").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, with leave I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 141, 142, 171, and 173. These are all concerned with minor improvements to the drafting to make the cross-references to the definitions of various terms a little more specific. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Beaverbrook Lord Beaverbrook moved Amendments Nos. 141 and 142:
Page 84, line 9, column 2, after ("193") insert ("(1)").
Page 84, line 10, column 2, after ("193") insert ("(1)").
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Clause 195 [Design right]:
Lord Mottistone Lord Mottistone moved Amendment No. 143:
Page 84, line 38, at end insert ("or").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I should like to speak also to Amendments Nos. 144 and 147, which are my amendments and which go together; and Amendments Nos. 175, 176 (which is my
698
amendment) 179, 214, 216. 219 and 225. We have understood that the "must match" exception to protection for design right is intended to prevent the abuse of design right by motor car manufacturers in respect of spare parts for motor cars. It is largely in the area of motor car spares that controversy has arisen in the past in respect of the protection conferred on industrially applied design by copyright.
While I and the CBI do not agree that there has been an abuse of intellectual property rights, the CBI is of the opinion that if there is such a perceived abuse the exclusions from design right protection should be confined to those sectors of industry where the abuse occurs. This is most easily achieved by designating certain classes of article to which the must match exception should apply. The proposed amendments permit the Secretary of State to designate classes of article, for example, spare parts for motor vehicles, to which a must match exception applies.
The Secretary of State then has the ability to tailor the effect of design right protection so that any adverse effects on consumers are eliminated. Those sectors of industry which need design right protection to justify investment in good design can obtain that protection.
This is altogether a more flexible approach than a simple minded exclusion from protection determined by activities in a relatively small sector of British industry. For those reasons I seek to omit Clause 195(3)(c) and, in effect, to replace it by my new subsection, which is Amendment No. 147.
Amendment No. 176 applies the same subsection and the same principle to Clause 243, which are the amendments to the Registered Design Act. The other amendments in the name of my noble friend the Minister, Amendments Nos. 145, 175, 179, 214, 216, 219 and 225, do not appear to me to be linked to this in any way; but perhaps that is because I am dumb. It does not seem to me that I have any objection to them. They just look like tidying-up amendments, though no doubt we shall hear more about that from my noble friend the Minister. I beg to move Amendment No. 143.
Lord Lucas of Chilworth: My Lords, since I was involved in the earlier stage in this area of the Bill, I should take exception with my noble friend on this occasion in that his Amendments Nos. 143 and 144 take away the existing provisions which were a fundamental part of this part of the Bill. It leaves the equivalent of the provisions to the Secretary of State.
I suggest to the House that once the provision is removed, those opposed to that which the Bill as currently written provides for the motor industry will lobby to keep the industry out. We shall end up with a good deal more legislation; that is, representation to the Secretary of State. Under Amendment No. 147, when he makes his orders—these will presumably be by either negative or positive resolution of each House—we shall go through a long process. The injustice that currently applies will in effect continue for a long time to come. I hope therefore that my noble friend the Minister will resist my noble friend's set of amendments in this area and leave matters as they are in the Bill.

699
It would be right and proper for me to correct something that I said on 1st March when we discussed this matter. I said on that occasion that the State Farm Insurance Company of America had a lawsuit against Ford in America. I owe an apology to the Ford Motor Company because the lawsuit is against the Volvo company. Nevertheless, the substance of the matter is precisely the same. It is to ensure that there is open competition in the spare parts and replacement panel industry. For those reasons I hope that what is in the Bill will be retained.
Lord Beaverbrook: My Lords, with the leave of the House I shall also speak to the grouping of amendments detailed by my noble friend Lord Mottistone. That includes Amendment No. 145 which appears on the groupings list but which my noble friend omitted to mention. All of these amendments concern the must-match exception. I should like to turn first to my noble friend Lord Mottistone's Amendments Nos. 143, 144, 147 and 176. He said these would limit the must-match exceptions to those sectors of industry where abuse has occurred. But the must-match exception is not intended to deal with abuses.
As I explained both in Committee and on Report, the must-match exception is intended to prevent monopolies arising in the first place, and to preserve the benefits of competition. Although design right is only a right to prevent copying, it is quite clear that in circumstances where a competitor has no choice but to copy if he is to produce a part which will match, then if there were no must-match exception he could be completely shut out of the market. This is not a question of abuse but of basic policy. And I have to say that this Government do not wish to create monopolies in this way in any sector of industry.
In this respect, a lot has been said about the design right proposals having been based on the needs of the motor industry. This is not the case. It is true that the problems of over-strong copyright protection first showed themselves in the motor industry, but the need to preserve competition is just as important in any sector of industry. And we should be quite clear about this: the absence of a must-match exception would enable competition in certain kinds of product to be totally frozen out. In our view that is not the way that the markets should operate. For that reason, I must say to my noble friend that I cannot accept his amendments.
I should like to turn now to Amendments Nos. 145, 175, 179, 214, 216, 219 and 225 all standing in my name. These amendments are intended to clarify the effect of the must-match exceptions to both design right and registered designs. They arise from concern which has been expressed in your Lordships' House and elsewhere that the must-match exception will effectively take away design protection in a wide range of cases where an independently designed item is subsequently used with other identical items in some larger article. It was never our intention that the must-match exception should apply in such cases. The question of whether the must-match exception applies is to be answered at the moment when the
700
design is created, not at some later time. And the amendents are intended to put this beyond doubt.
For example, suppose that a new shape of an all-purpose strut is designed. If that is all that is designed, then it is quite clear that, at the moment of its creation, the shape or design of the strut is not dependent on anything else. In these circumstances the must-match exception should not apply because there is nothing to stop anyone else designing their own strut. In other words, there is no monopoly which needs to be avoided. Of course, the strut may subsequently be used by someone else, for example in a protective grille where there are a number of matching struts. At this point the shape of any one of the struts matches that of the others and any replacement would also need to match the others. However, in our view the must-match exception should not apply in these circumstances.
The uses to which an independently created design may subsequently be put should not affect the rights of the designer. In other words, those who design free standing things where there are alternatives should not be subjected to must-match, even where the design is subsequently used in a situation where the articles match other articles. This is the main thrust of the amendments but I should perhaps add that Amendments Nos. 179, 214, 219 and 225 are drafting amendments, consequential on the additional reference to "the author" of a design which would be introduced by Amendments Nos. 175 and 216.
For the reasons stated I must resist my noble friend's Amendment No. 143.
8.45 p.m.
Lord Mottistone: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for his careful explanation. I am sorry that he cannot go some way towards accepting my amendments. I feel sure that those who have advised me and the CBI will read what he has said with great care. I should not be surprised if this matter returned when the Bill goes to another place. However, at this stage I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 144 not moved.]
Lord Beaverbrook Lord Beaverbrook moved Amendment No. 145:
Page 84, line 40, after ("intended") insert ("by the designer").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I have already spoken to this amendment. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Beaverbrook Lord Beaverbrook moved Amendment No. 146:
Page 84, leave out line 42 and insert—
("(d) surface decoration.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I have already spoken to this amendment. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 147 not moved.]
Clause 198 [Duration of design rights]:
Lord Mottistone Lord Mottistone moved Amendment No. 148:
Page 85, line 32, leave out from ("which") to ("an") in line 33.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, the amendment is proposed as a result of many other amendments to the clause in order to try to free it a little. In general an article would be made after the design, and this is an alternative way of extending the term. As at present drafted Clause 198 involves the use of three alternative tests to determine the period of protection provided by design rights: namely, 15 years from the end of the calendar year in which the design was first recorded; 15 years from the end of the calendar year in which an article was first made; and 10 years from the end of the calendar year in which an article was first marketed. Bearing in mind the difficulty of defining with any precision the term "marketing", the use of three alternative definitions is excessive. My amendment proposes to reduce the number to two.
In moving this amendment I am also speaking to Amendments Nos. 149 and 170 standing in my name. The latter amendment is intended to simplify the definition of the term "marketing". The definition of the term "design right" is simplified "to stop the clock running" —a phrase used by the Minister—before an article has even been designed (for example, the sale of an aircraft to an airline) and well before any real marketing takes place. I beg to move.
Lord Beaverbrook: My Lords, I should like to speak to Amendments Nos. 148, 149, 150, 151, 152 and 170. They cover the same point. Dealing first with my noble friend's Amendments Nos. 148 and 149, these would mean that the 15-year cut-off period would start only when the first article is made to the design. In the typical case of a design which starts life as a drawing and then progresses through a model and a prototype to the final article, the effect would be that the 15-year period would start when the model was made; that is, some time later than would be the case under the Bill as drafted.
But what of designs which remain on the drawing board? As long as no articles are made to the design, design right would continue to exist and that could go in perpetuity. We have set our face against perpetuity rights in the Bill with an exception for one special case. I do not believe that we should allow the possibility in design right. The incentive to bring designs to the market place would be reduced and potentially useful designs which could be exploited by others after the 15-year cut-off period could remain unused. For those reasons I must resist my noble friend's Amendments Nos. 148 and 149.
I should like to deal with Amendments Nos. 150, 151 and 152 standing in my name. They fulfil undertakings which I gave to come forward with amendments to ensure that the 10-year term of design right does not start to run until articles made to the design are in existence and are put on the market. The difficulty arises because as it stands at present, the Bill uses the concept of marketing to start the clock; and marketing includes offers to sell as well as sale itself. The result is that the 10-year clock would start when articles made to the design are offered for sale. This formula could start the clock before any articles were actually in existence, possibly even before a final design had crystallised.
The amendments on the other hand would start the clock when articles made to the design are first made available for sale or hire. It follows from this
702
formulation that the countdown to the end of design right protection will not start until articles are in existence and are put on the market. In our view the term of design right should be 10 years in the real market and these amendments will achieve that aim.
Finally, I should say a few words about my noble friend's Amendment No. 170 which I think is directed towards a similar end. My noble friend's amendment would modify the general definition of marketing. However, we think that it is necessary to deal with the starting of the clock separately and to leave the general definition of marketing undisturbed. In any event, I hope that my noble friend will feel that my amendments adequately deal with the problem of starting the 10 year clock and that, as a result, he will not feel it necessary to move his own amendment.
Lord Mottistone: I thank my noble friend. I apologise for not referring to his amendments when moving my own. Those amendments go some way towards what we are talking about but not as far as my amendment or as far as one would have wished. However, it is a good move and no doubt that matter can be pursued later elsewhere. At this stage, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 149 not moved.]
Lord Beaverbrook Lord Beaverbrook moved Amendments Nos. 150, 151 and 152:
Page 85, line 35, leave out ("marketed") and insert ("made available for sale or hire")
Page 85, line 37, leave out ("such articles were first marketed") and insert ("that first occurred")
Page 85, line 38, leave out subsection (2) and insert—
("(2) The reference in subsection (1) to articles being made available for sale or hire is to their being made so available anywhere in the world by or with the licence of the design right owner.")
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I have already spoken to these amendments. I beg to move.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Clause 204 [Assignment and licences]:
Lord Beaverbrook Lord Beaverbrook moved Amendment No. 153:
Page 87, line 45, leave out ("acts") and insert ("things")
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I have already spoken to this amendment. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 208 [Primary infringement of design right]:
Lord Beaverbrook Lord Beaverbrook moved Amendment No. 154:
Page 89, line 8, at end insert—
("(1 A) Reproduction of a design by making articles to the design means copying the design so as to produce articles exactly or substantially to that design, and references in this Part to making articles to a design shall be construed accordingly.")
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 154, I shall also speak to Amendments Nos. 156, 157 and 174. They all concern the meaning of the word "reproduction". When we discussed this question in Committee, my

703
noble friend Lord Campbell of Alloway expressed the fear that, as drafted, the restricted act of reproducing a design went too wide. My noble friend Lord Stockton and the noble Lord, Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran, expressed similar worries on Report. As a result, I undertook to look at the drafting and these amendments are the result of those deliberations.
The first worry that these amendments are intended to overcome is whether reproduction is limited to copying, or whether it goes wider than that and covers the independent creation of the same design. As I said in our earlier debates, the word "reproduction" appears in the existing copyright law and has always been taken to mean copying. However, the copyright provisions in Part I of the Bill use the term "copying" rather than "reproduction" and consequently there is a danger that if we do not do the same here in design right, the word "reproduction" in Part III might be taken to include reproduction by independent creation. Since it has always been our intention that design right should cover only actual copying, I am happy to put this beyond doubt.
The second worry that was raised concerned the question of how similar to the original a copy had to be before it would infringe design right. In our view, the right test is that a copy should be either exactly or substantially the same as the original, and that is what amendment No. 154 provides. Amendments Nos. 156 and 174 are consequential on Amendment No. 154.
Finally, I should say a few words about Amendment No. 157 which would delete paragraph (b) of Clause 208(3). As I explained in Committee, the purpose of this paragraph was to make it absolutely clear that if a person copies a design in the process of producing a derivative design, he infringes design right in the original design. The example I gave was a doll, the design of which had been copied and adapted to create a toothbrush holder based on the doll. The debates in your Lordships' House have however convinced us that this does not need saying. Furthemore, since it was clear in our debates that the paragraph was being taken to be a definition of the meaning of "reproduction", with the result that a reproduction could be very different from the original, we think that the best solution is to delete the paragraph altogether. I beg to move.
Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran: My Lords, I thank the Minister and his advisers for bringing forward these amendments having regard to what I said earlier in these proceedings.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Beaverbrook Lord Beaverbrook moved Amendment No. 155:
Page 89, line 11, at end insert—
("(2A) Design right is also infringed by a person who without the licence of the design right owner does or authorises another to do either of the acts mentioned in subsection (1) in relation to a kit, that is, a complete or substantially complete set of components, intended to be assembled into such an article as is mentioned in that subsection.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I should like to speak to Amendments Nos. 158 and 159 which are all intended to meet a point made by my noble friend
704
Lord Mottistone. During the debate on Report on the must-match exception to design right, my noble friend expressed concern that the must-match exception would seriously weaken the protection given by design right to articles which are made in two matching parts. The example he gave was of a vegetable dish where the lid must match the body, and the body must match the lid. His concern was that this would allow competitors to take unfair advantage by making and selling lids and bodies separately.
I should say that we do not share that fear: we do not believe that the courts would fail to stop people acting in this way because anyone who is making and selling lids and bodies in pairs is clearly making and selling complete vegetable dishes. In our view it is quite right that people should be stopped from acting in this way. However, that being the case, and given that we already have a kit provision for registered designs, we felt it would be right to include a kit provision for design right to remove any lingering doubts. I beg to move.
Lord Mottistone: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend for having met this point which I made at varying stages of the Bill. It goes some way towards meeting the objections we had to the Bill as cast. I thank him very much.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Beaverbrook Lord Beaverbrook moved Amendments Nos. 156 and 157:
Page 89, leave out lines 12 and 13 and insert ("For the purposes of this section").
Page 89, leave out lines 17 and 18.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I have already spoken to these amendments. I beg to move.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Clause 209 [Secondary infringement: importing or dealing with infringing article]:
Lord Beaverbrook Lord Beaverbrook moved Amendments Nos. 158 and 159:
Page 89, line 21, leave out ("also").
Page 89, line 28, at end insert—
("(1A) Design right is also infringed by a person who without the licence of the design right owner does any of the acts mentioned in subsection (1) in relation to a kit, that is, a complete or substantially complete set of components, intended to be assembled into such an article as is mentioned in that subsection.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I have already spoken to these amendments. I beg to move.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Clause 212 [Right to delivery of infringing articles, &c.]:
Lord Beaverbrook Lord Beaverbrook moved Amendment No. 160:
Page 90, line 27, after ("it") insert ("has been or").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I have already spoken to this amendment. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran moved Amendment No. 161:
After Clause 215. insert the following new clause:
("Compensation of employees fir certain designs.
Where it appears to the Registrar of Designs on an applicaton made by an employee that the employee has made a design belonging to the employer that the design is (having regard among other things to the size of the employer's undertaking) of outstanding benefit to the employer and that by reason of those facts it is just that the employee should be awarded compensation or award to be paid by the employer, the Registrar may award him such compensation or award as he thinks fit having regard to the nature of the employee's duties, his remuneration and the other advantages he derives or has derived from his employment, the effort and skill which the employee has devoted to making the design, the effort and skill which any other person has devoted in making the design jointly with the employee and the contribution made by the employer to the development and working of the design by the provision of advice and facilities.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this is an old friend and I am not proposing to weary your Lordships with all the arguments in favour of it. The theme is that any designer who makes a substantial design of outstanding benefit to his employer should receive some compensation. This amendment is along the same lines as an amendment introduced in the Patents Act 1977 during the passage of which I had considerable opportunity to bring forward that amendment, and I am trying to do the same with regard to design. The employee designer would be entitled to go to the Registrar of Designs and put his case and have the award made as the amendment states:
"having regard to the nature of the employee's duties, his remuneration and the other advantages he derives or has derived from his employment, the effort and skill which the employee has devoted to making the design, the effort and skill which any other person has devoted in making the design jointly with the employee and the contribution made by the employer".
This amendment had wide support from all sides of the House when I raised it before and I understood that the Minister was prepared to think again about it and on that assurance, I withdrew it. I beg to move.
9 p.m.
Lord Morton of Shuna: My Lords, I hope that the Minister and the Government are prepared to accept this amendment. The Minister has been extremely helpful on very many of the ideas that have been put forward from this side of the House. The noble Lord, Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran, was able to persuade a reasonable government in 1977 to adapt the Patents Act to his wishes and it would be nice if this Government, which we perhaps do not regard as quite as reasonable as the government of 1977, were to show that on this occasion we are wrong.
Lord Beaverbrook: My Lords, be that as it may, I am afraid that I am unable to be very helpful to the noble Lord tonight, but I assure him that we have given long and careful consideration to what he said previously.
As the noble Lord, Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran, has explained, these amendments concern remuneration for employee designs. When we debated two similar amendments which the noble Lord tabled on Report, I indicated that we were generally unsympathetic but that we would take the matter away and consider it. We have now given the matter careful consideration and I regret to tell the noble Lord that we do not
706
believe it would be appropriate to do what he proposes.
As I indicated in the debate on Report, the main argument against the proposal of the noble Lord, Lord Kilgerran, is that it would impose a significant regulatory burden on industry. A firm wishing to check claims from employees would need to keep much more detailed records about who had designed what than they now do and would probably need entirely new accounting procedures to relate profitability to particular designs. There would also inevitably be time-consuming disputes about, say, the relative contributions of members of a design team, or the financial benefit deriving from a particular design. It is of course true to say that these problems also exist with the corresponding patent provision. But the difficulties there are much less extreme because there are very many fewer patents than designs. Moreover, patents have to be applied for in any event and therefore necessarily already require much of the record keeping which is required. Design right on the other hand is acquired automatically without any need to make an application and to add the burden of record keeping to keep track of employee designs would take away much of the advantage this gives, particularly to small firms.
In the light of all that, our view is that the noble Lord's amendment would place a significant regulatory burden on British industry which cannot be justified. For this reason I am unable to accept the amendment.
Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran: My Lords, that is a surprising answer to come from a Minister, in the context of social justice. It suggests that where a man creates a design and his firm might make millions out of it he cannot get some compensation. The position of a designer in a company is different from that of an inventor. A designer has little chance of promotion because of his specialist activities. To introduce what are merely procedural objections to what is, in my view, social justice in the context of industrial relations is surprising. The Minister and the Government will not be surprised when I suggest that this matter will be raised again in another place. In the circumstances, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 218 [Licences available in last five years of design right]:
[Amendment No. 162 not moved.]
Clause 221 [Crown use of designs]:
Lord Beaverbrook Lord Beaverbrook moved Amendment No. 163:
Page 95, line 10, leave out from ("Crown") to end of line 31 and insert ("are to—

(a) the defence of the realm,

(b) foreign defence purposes, and

(c) health service purposes.

(3) The reference to the supply of articles for "foreign defence purposes" is to their supply—

(a) for the defence of a country outside the realm whose Government is party to an agreement with Her Majesty's Government in the United Kingdom in respect of defence matters: or

707

(b) for use by armed forces operating in pursuance of a resolution of the United Nations or one of its organs.").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving this amendment, I speak also to Amendments Nos. 164, 165 and 166 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran.
When the Crown use clauses were debated in Committee it was argued that the powers to be granted to the Crown were excessive. The powers in the clauses cover the purchase of equipment generally, not just defence equipment or equipment for the health service and I undertook to see whether this was too wide.
Having considered the point, we have concluded that the general power provided by the Bill is not in fact necessary. Accordingly, the amendment would provide a specific power limited to defence purposes and health service purposes only. However, I include foreign defence purposes in the definition of defence purposes, provided of course that there is an appropriate agreement or arrangement with the foreign government or governments—for example, NATO—or a resolution of the United Nations. The argument for extending powers to foreign defence purposes boils down to the fact that to a considerable extent there is no real difference between the categories of articles procured for UK defence purposes and those procured for foreign defence purposes.
Wherever possible equipment is standardised between ourselves and our allies—in NATO, the Commonwealth, or wherever—and all the parts have to be identical. Indeed, common stocks are often held and can be called upon in emergencies by our allies for use in their defence equipment. In these circumstances it would be impractical, even if it were not strictly impossible, to monitor which of our stocks were subject to design right and which were not. That is not to say that a careful check is not made on equipment exported—it is; but it would be intolerable for some parts to be exportable and some not. I am sure that the majority of manufacturers will understand this.
There is also a need for Crown use powers in the health service. If design right subsists in a surgical or a curative device or a prosthesis—for example, a hip replacement —and the owner of the design right insists upon unsatisfactory terms for supplying the item (for example, in price, quality or time of delivery) it is simply not practicable to redesign a substitute.
I appreciate that the question of powers in the health service is the subject of amendments in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran. All I can say to the noble Lord on this matter is that we have considered it carefully and have concluded that the powers are necessary for the reasons I have given. In this respect, however, I should add that none of the remaining powers would be used without a very good reason.
Authorisations under this clause will certainly not be a standard contract condition in government contracts. They would not be used to legitimise a contractor who had deliberately infringed a design right held by a third party. Furthermore, the powers
708
would only be used where design right owner abuses his rights and the Ministry of Defence has undertaken that only those officers who have authority to authenticate the Corporate Seal of the Secretary of State for Defence (that is, any Assistant Under-Secretary or above, or the Principal Directors of Contracts or Patents or the Directors of Contracts or Patents) will be given the authority to authorise use of the power given under these clauses. In the Department of Health and Social Security, an authorisation would only be given at a similar level. I am happy to put those assurances on the record.
It is, I hope, clear that we have gone a very considerable way towards meeting the concerns which have been expressed and I hope that these amendments, together with the assurances I have given, are acceptable. I beg to move.
The Lord Chancellor (Lord Mackay of Clashfern): My Lords, if this amendment is agreed to I cannot call Amendment No. 165.
Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran moved, as an amendment to Amendment No. 163, Amendment No. 164:
Line 4, leave out ("and (c) health service purposes.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I am glad to see that the Government have moved away from the position that they tried to maintain with their extensive powers for Crown purposes. Of course, I am glad to hear the assurances which the noble Lord the Minister has given. As regards all these assurances, it seems to me that many of them could easily be put into the statute. Assurances of the kind he has given may be what this present government may adhere to, but we would like to see this embodied into statute. Therefore, I should like to press my amendment in regard to the deletion of paragraph (c)—that is, the deletion of health services—leaving the powers of the Crown to be exercisable in regard to the defence of the realm and for foreign defence purposes.
The noble Lord referred to certain designs of hip joints and other things. It may be difficult for those to be dealt with by some private firm and then for the Government suddenly to decide to plunge in in order in effect to take over those designs. I can conceive of instances of that happening. It seems to be contrary to the whole philosophy of the Government of using marketable forces to take that kind of action in relation to the design of any equipment in the health service. I beg to move.
Lord Mottistone: My Lords, I apologise to my noble and learned friend for interfering the last time. I very strongly agree with the noble Lord, Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran, in the remarks that he has just made. It is not good enough to have assurances to back up legislation. The amendments of themselves are not satisfactory to industry. The assurances as such will perhaps reassure them temporarily. The CBI had meetings with the Ministry of Defence not long ago and in between the two stages of the Bill. The CBI was given the understanding that there would be a much greater tightening of the powers of the Crown than is in fact the case with these amendments.
As regards the amendment taking out the health clause, it seems to me that that is something which

709
ought to be supported. It is all very well talking about hip replacements and that kind of thing. There is an enormous amount of electronics used in medicine these days. It could well be that the very valuable software associated with medical matters would be in jeopardy if health is given the same kind of priority as defence. As the Ministry of Defence does not seem to think that defence requires this great support, it seems to me that we have not gone nearly far enough. This is not the time to try to change matters. I am quite sure that in another place this subject will be taken up again and it will be pressed with real vigour. It is a sad situation which is not satisfactory as yet.
Lord Morton of Shuna: My Lords, I do not know what has gone wrong today. I find myself supporting the Government rather too often for my own comfort.
It appears to me that it is necessary that health service purposes should be included. Health service purposes provide a situation where the Government as operators of that service are providing, in a monopolist way, health services for something approaching at least 95 per cent. of the health care in the country. If someone said, regarding a hip replacement that they wanted something and they would insist upon it, it would be entirely wrong for some grossly excessive payment to be allowed.
It is quite wrong to apply pure market forces. I am perfectly prepared to attack that as something which it is not right to apply in all circumstances to the health service. However, people like nurses and other workers in the health service are asked to comply with their social obligations.
If business has a patent or design right, or whatever, there should be a power on business to be forced to supply the goods at a reasonable cost. I understand that is the basic purpose behind the amendments. I oppose the amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran.
Lord Beaverbrook: The noble Lord, Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran has disputed that perhaps my assurances may not be effective in future years. I would not dispute that the assurances I have given about how the powers will be used are not legally binding in the same way that a statutory provision would be. We are reluctant to write equivalent restrictions into the Bill not least because they are extremely difficult, if not impossible, to frame in the precise way in which statutes are written. Furthermore, writing restrictions into the Bill could be unduly restrictive in that they would be set in concrete and could prevent changes being agreed in the way in which powers should be used in changing circumstances. For those reasons, I prefer not to write any further restrictions into the Bill.
My noble friend Lord Mottistone raised a point about the use of valuable software for health service purposes. Software is not covered by design right in Part III but by copyright in Part I where there are no crime use provisions.
My noble friend suggested that the amendments tabled in my name do not go as far as the Ministry of Defence agreed that they should. The amendments were drawn up in the closest possible consultation
710
with the Ministry and in the light of the meeting to which my noble friend referred.
Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for his reply. At this late stage of the Bill I shall not take up the cudgels with the noble Lord, Lord Morton of Shuna. I console myself with the fact that the Government have moved away from the position that they maintained some six weeks ago. I am grateful for the support given by the noble Lord, Lord Mottistone. I shall proceed as he intends to proceed and have the matter raised in another place. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 166 not moved.]
9.15 p.m.
Clause 233 [Reference of disputes relating to Crown use]:
The Lord Chancellor The Lord Chancellor moved Amendment No. 167:
Page 101, line 2, leave out from ("referred") to end of line 3 and insert ("to the court by any party to the dispute").
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, in moving this amendment, I speak also to Amendments Nos. 168, 212, 213, 223 and 224. All are consequential upon the establishment of the patents county court jurisdiction. Part III of the Bill, Clause 223, design right, and the Registered Designs Act 1949, at present define the court for proceedings under them as the High Court in England and Wales. Without these amendments, notwithstanding the establishment of the new jurisdiction, the county court will be unable to hear disputes relating to the Crown use of a design and cases under the Registered Designs Act 1949. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
The Lord Chancellor The Lord Chancellor moved Amendment No. 168:
Page 101, line 30, at end insert—
("(6) In this section "the court" means—

(a) in England and Wales, the High Court or a patents county court (see Part VI of this Act),

(b) in Scotland, the Court of Session, and

(c) in Northern Ireland, the High Court.").

The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, I have spoken to the amendment. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 243 [Minor definitions]:
Lord Beaverbrook Lord Beaverbrook moved Amendment No. 169:
Page 104, line 19, leave out ("employed") and insert ("employee").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving the amendment, I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 172, 178, 215, 218 and 226. The amendments make drafting changes relating to the use of the term "employment" and related expressions in Parts III and IV of the Bill. Clause 253, which contains minor definitions used in Part III, currently contains a reference to "employed", which should read "employee". Amendment No. 169 makes the necessary alteration. Amendment No. 172 would make the consequential change to the index in Clause

711
244. Amendment No. 178 would bring the wording of Clause 247 into line with that used in Clauses 11 and 197.
Amendment No. 215 would provide definitions of "employee", "employment" and "employer" for the Registered Designs Act 1949 which, if your Lordships agree to Amendment No. 169, would be exactly the same as the definitions of these terms provided in Clause 243 for design right. Amendments Nos. 218 and 226 would make the necessary consequential changes to Schedule 4. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 170 not moved.]
Clause 244 [Index of defined expressions]:
Lord Beaverbrook Lord Beaverbrook moved Amendment No. 171:
Page 104, line 45, column 2, at end insert ("(1)").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I have already spoken to the amendment. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Beaverbrook Lord Beaverbrook moved Amendment No. 172:
Page 105, line 2, column I. leave out ("employed") and insert ("employee").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I have already spoken to the amendment. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Beaverbrook Lord Beaverbrook moved Amendment No. 173:
Page 105, line 5 [numbered 4], column 2, at end insert ("(1)").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I have already spoken to the amendment. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Beaverbrook Lord Beaverbrook moved Amendment No. 174:
Page 105, line 10 [numbered 9], at end insert—
("making articles to a design section 208(1 A)").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I have already spoken to the amendment. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 245 [Registrable designs]:
Lord Beaverbrook Lord Beaverbrook moved Amendment No. 175:
Page 105, line 32 [numbered 31], after ("intended") insert ("by the author of the design").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I have already spoken to the amendment. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 176 not moved.]
Lord Beaverbrook Lord Beaverbrook moved Amendment No. 177:
Page 105, line 39 [numbered 38], leave out from ("article") to ("aesthetic") in line 40 [39] and insert ("if the appearance of the article is not material, that is, if').
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving the amendment I shall speak also to Amendment No. 217. When we discussed this part of Clause 245 on Report, a number of your Lordships criticised the drafting. These amendments are our attempt to clarify the wording. In this respect, I should perhaps say that the most important thing to note about the
712
new Section 1(3) is that it is concerned with the aesthetic appearance of articles of the kind for which a design is to be registered, and not with the appearance of the design itself.
As I said on Report, the intention is not to deny registered design protection unreasonably but rather to restrict the Act to what we consider to be its proper field in a way which is clear. To this end the object of the provision is to deny registration in respect of articles whose aesthetic appearance is not something which matters to those who use the articles.
There are of course plenty of examples where the aesthetic appearance clearly matters; for example, furniture. And as I said on Report, if it is the case that the aesthetic appearance of farm tractors matters to farmers, or if the aesthetic appearance of scientific instruments matters to scientists, then aesthetic designs would be registrable for these articles. Even where this was not generally true, the final words of the new Section 1(3) will allow for the possibility that appearance would matter if the design in question were applied to the article. In other words, it would be possible to argue that although the appearance of those articles normally does not matter, applying the design to the article will change all that.
As to articles for which designs could not be registered, then I would suggest an ordinary wood screw as an example. Equally however there are plenty of wood screws with decorative heads whose aesthetic appearance clearly does matter to those who use them and the relevant designs would clearly be registrable. This is an important provision in the Bill and it is important that it is clear. In our view these amendments would result in drafting which is clearer. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 247 [Authorship and first ownership of designs]:
Lord Beaverbrook Lord Beaverbrook moved Amendments Nos. 178 and 179:
Page 107, line 5, leave out ("a person") and insert ("an employee").
Page 107, line 8, leave out ("subsection (1)") and insert ("this Act").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I have already spoken to these amendments and therefore I beg to move.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Clause 248 [Right given by registration of design]:
Lord Beaverbrook Lord Beaverbrook moved Amendment No. 180:
Page 107, line 36, leave out ("in the United Kingdom or elsewhere").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, with the leave of the House, in moving the amendment, I shall also speak to Amendments Nos. 181, 182, 220, 221 and 222. The amendments all concern the infringing act of making tools for enabling infringing articles to be made. Amendments Nos. 180, 181, 220 and 221 correct an error in the drafting.
The infringing act—in this case the making of tools —is necessarily only caught when it is done in the United Kingdom, so the present reference to the United Kingdom in subsection 3 of the new Section 7 is superfluous and the reference to "elsewhere" is

713
wrong. However, we do not believe that it should matter where the tools are used to make articles and consequently a reference to "the United Kingdom or elsewhere" is needed later in subsection 3 after the word "made".
Having corrected that defect, we now come to Amendments Nos. 182 and 222. They would make it an infringing act to make tools for enabling the making of kits of parts, as well as the making of complete articles. As presently provided, it is an infringement to make and to trade in infringing articles and kits of parts intended to be assembled into infringing articles. It therefore seems anomalous that the making of tools should be an infringement only in relation to the making of complete, infringing articles and not in relation to kits of parts. Amendments Nos. 182 and 222 would remove that anomaly. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Beaverbrook Lord Beaverbrook moved Amendments Nos. 181 and 182:
Page 107, line 37, after ("made") insert ("in the United Kingdom or elsewhere").
Page 107, line 42, after ("0 1") insert ("or (3)").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I have already spoken to the amendments and therefore I beg to move.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Clause 254 [Persons entitled to describe themselves as patent agents]:
Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran moved Amendment No. 183:
Page 109, line 39, leave out ("or "patent attorney" ").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, while moving this amendment, with leave of the House, I should also like to speak to Amendments Nos. 184, 185, 186, 188 and 189. As the Minister is well aware, strong representations have been made to him by eminent solicitors and by the Law Society—I have seen much of the correspondence—saying that it is quite improper and causes confusion to designate a patent agent as a patent attorney.
The word "attorney" associated with a registered patent agent, I am instructed, causes considerable confusion. I am not sure why registered patent agents would want to use the word "attorney" in that context. They have the opportunity to use the name "European patent attorney" in the context of their international obligations. I beg to move that the words "patent attorney" be eliminated.
Lord Beaverbrook: My Lords, with the leave of your Lordships, I shall speak also to the amendments quoted by the noble Lord.
Similar amendments were moved in Committee, and my noble friend Lord Dundee indicated at that time that we would look again at the question of the references to "patent attorney" in the Bill.
714
This is rather a difficult issue, but the fundamental point on which it turns is Section 21 of the Solicitors Act 1974. This provides that it is an offence for any unqualified person to use a title which implies that he is qualified to act as a solicitor. The Law Society contends that the use of the title "attorney" by a person who is not a qualified lawyer would contravene that section.
The Government are content to leave that question of interpretation to the courts, and I am not going to comment on it here. However, I should like to point out that while the Bill incorporates a saving to the effect that the use of "European patent attorney" by persons on the European list does not contravene Section 21 of the Solicitors Act, there is no such saving in respect of the use of the words "patent attorney" alone. It therefore follows that nothing in this part of the Bill affects any restrictions which may currently exist on the use of "patent attorney".
Clause 254 does not give any person permission to use the title "patent attorney"; it merely states that certain persons may not use the title. This may seem a little odd, but we consider it necessary for the following reasons.
In future, unqualified persons will be able to offer patent agency services. Because under the Bill, such persons will still not be free to call themselves "patent agents", they will need to adopt some other title, and "patent attorney" would be one obvious possibility. However, we believe that the use of the title "patent attorney" by persons who are not registered patent agents should not be allowed. I emphasise that this does not mean that we want to encourage the use of "patent attorney" by patent agents; it is simply a reflection of our belief that these words would in fact convey to the public the impression that the person using them is a qualified patent agent. This has come about principally through the legitimate use of "European patent attorney" by patent agents entitled to appear before the European Patent Office. I am sure that your Lordships would agree, therefore, that to permit the use of "patent attorney" by persons who are not registered patent agents would be undesirable. The references to "patent attorney" in Clause 254 are included to ensure that, whatever the position under the Solicitors Act, such persons are prohibited from using the title.
I shall just add at this point, because Clause 254 is structured so as to prohibit certain persons using the title "patent attorney" rather than positively to permit anyone to use it, the amendments proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Lloyd, would not have the effect of removing any entitlement of registered patent agents to use the title. The Bill as presently drafted gives them no such entitlement. The amendments would merely remove from the Bill any prohibition on persons not registered as patent agents from using the title, leaving this matter to be determined for them, as well as for registered patent agents, by Section 21 of the Solicitors Act.
For those reasons, I would have to resist the noble Lord's amendments.
Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for what he has said. I am sure that noble Lords will agree with me that it would be

715
brave—indeed foolish—for me to take up the cudgels with him on behalf of the Law Society, or eminent solicitors, in the presence of the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate and the noble and learned
716
Lord who sits on the Woolsack. In those circumstances, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 184 to 186 not moved.]
9.30 p.m.
Lord Beaverbrook Lord Beaverbrook moved Amendment No. 187:
Page 110, line 3, leave out ("attornies") and insert ("attorneys").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, with the leave of your Lordships, in moving this amendment I shall speak also to Amendment No. 190. These amendments correct the spelling of the word "attorneys". My noble friend Lord Stockton moved a similar amendment on Report, and your Lordships may recall that I resisted it on the grounds that the spelling used in the Bill was correct. I have to say that I was wrong and that my noble friend was right. However, we have bought a new dictionary, we have a new person to read it and I hope that in future we will at least get our spelling right. I beg to move.
The Earl of Stockton: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister. I should hate to think that a pair of "i's" could come between us and I am happy that he has shown himself to have the wisdom of the "y's".
Lord Mottistone: My Lords, has my noble friend noted that, as regards the title of Clause 255. the word "attorneys" is also spelt incorrectly in the margin?
Lord Beaverbrook: My Lords, no.
Lord Mottistone: My Lords, perhaps that should be corrected as well.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendments Nos. 188 and 189 not moved]:
Clause 255: [Persons entitled to describe themselves as European patent attornies, &c.]:
Lord Beaverbrook Lord Beaverbrook moved Amendment No. 190:
Page 110, line 42. leave out ("attornies") and insert ("attorneys").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
The Lord Chancellor The Lord Chancellor moved Amendment No. 191:
Page III, line 9, at end insert—
("(5) A person whose name appears on the European list is not guilty of an offence under section 21 of the Solicitors Act 1974 or Article 22 of the Solicitors (Northern Ireland) Order 1976 by reason only of describing himself as a European patent attorney.").
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 191, with the leave of your Lordships I shall also speak to Amendments Nos. 193, 194 and 230. The purpose of most of these amendments is to group existing provisions relating to patent agents in a single schedule to the Bill. I do not expect that your Lordships would wish me to trouble you with the detail of that reorganisation.
The new Section 102A confirms the decision of the High Court in Reiss Engineering Company v. Harris. There the court held that Section 102(3) of the Patents Act 1977 permits patent agents and non-practising barristers to conduct all stages of litigation when appearing for a client on an appeal from the comptroller.
In order to put the matter beyond doubt, this amendment confirms that decision. It does not create any new right of audience. The new subsection (2) in Clause 267 provides a power to regulate the conduct of a patent agent before the patents county court. The new Section 102A(3) provides for a similar regulatory power in the patents court. Patent agents are a well-disciplined profession and I see the existence of these powers only as a longstop which I hope it will never he necessary to use.
I have for a moment passed over the amendment creating the new Section 99A to the Patents Act 1977. This amendment gives the patents court a power similar to that given to the patents county court in Amendment No. 201, to order a Patent Office report. It gives the patent court a power which otherwise only the patents county court would have had. I beg to move.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, if I may say so, the noble and learned Lord skated through the reasons for moving this amendment and I am perfectly happy to accept his word. As a complete layman in the business, perhaps I may ask the noble and learned Lord where, as a businessman, I find the European list. Is that something to which the noble and learned Lord could respond?
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I regret that I cannot give the precise location of the European list at the moment. I think there are copies of it in a number of places and perhaps the noble Lord would allow me to write to him on the point.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 257 [Privilege 16r communication for patent agents]:
Lord Beaverbrook Lord Beaverbrook moved Amendment No. 192:
Page 112, line 10, leave out ("does not include criminal proceedings but").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, with the leave of your Lordships, in moving this amendment I shall speak also to Amendment No. 195. At the Report stage my noble friend Lord Mottistone tabled amendments to these clauses which sought to bring criminal proceedings within the classes of proceedings in which communications with qualified patent agents and trade mark agents would be privileged.
In speaking to these amendments my noble friends Lord Mottistone and Lord Jenkin of Roding both made the point that advice given by patent agents may be equally germane to civil and criminal proceedings, and that there is no clear justification for making a distinction between them for the purposes of privileged communications. I expressed some sympathy with this view and said that we would look again at the question. Having done so we have come to the conclusion that the reference to criminal proceedings in both Clauses 257 and 263 should be deleted so that privileges for communications with qualified patent agents and trade mark agents will extend to all legal proceedings. I beg to move Amendment No. 192.
Lord Mottistone: My Lords, I want very much to thank my noble friend for taking this up and moving the amendments.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, I am sure that the amendment is correct in what it seeks to do. The support of the noble Lord, Lord Mottistone, is right. As a layman I am always concerned about the extension of legal privilege. I wonder whether this formulation is really right. Are we to understand from the amendment that if there is a communication between a client and a patent agent which involves a Guinness-type situation, if I may put it like that, that communication if the amendment is accepted is now privileged? In other words, if there is a DTI inquiry ino a Guinness-type situation a patent agent can plead that he cannot give evidence to DTI inspectors. I think everyone understands what I mean by a Guinness-type situation. Is that what the amendment if passed would mean?
Lord Beaverbrook: My Lords, I believe that the powers of inspectors are covered under other legislation. In the example mentioned by the noble Lord —I do not want to get involved in particular cases—it would depend perhaps on whether criminal proceedings had been commenced.
The noble Lord will be well aware that very often where inspectors are appointed there is no question of criminal proceedings being commenced at that time. I suspect that it would vary very much from case to case. However, I would say that the privilege is limited to patent and similar proceedings and that the example given is unlikely to fall into such a category.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 259 [Right of audience in patent proceedings]:
The Lord Chancellor The Lord Chancellor moved Amendments No. 193:
Leave out Clause 259.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 260 [Effect of enactments relating to preparation of documents, &c.]:
The Lord Chancellor The Lord Chancellor moved Amendment No. 194:
Leave out Clause 260.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 263 [Privilege for communications with registered trade mark agents]:
Lord Beaverbrook Lord Beaverbrook moved Amendment No. 195:
Page 115, line 6, leave out ("does not include criminal proceedings but").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I have just spoken to this amendment. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 266 [Patents county courts to exercise special jurisdiction]:
The Lord Chancellor The Lord Chancellor moved Amendment No. 196:
Leave out Clause 266 and insert the following new clause:
("Patents county courts: special jurisdiction.
.—(1) The Lord Chancellor may by order made by statutory instrument designate any county court as a patents county court
720
and confer on it jurisdiction (its "special jurisdiction") to hear and determine such descriptions of proceedings relating to patents and designs as may be specified in the order.
(2) The special jurisdiction of a patents county court is exercisable throughout England and Wales, but rules of court may provide for a matter pending in one such court to be heard and determined in another or partly in that and partly in another.
(3) A patents county court may entertain proceedings within its special jurisdiction notwithstanding that no pecuniary remedy is sought.
(4) An order under this section providing for the discontinuance of any of the special jurisdiction of a patents county court may make provision as to proceedings pending in the court when the order comes into operation.
(5) Nothing in this section shall be construed as affecting the ordinary jurisdiction of a county court.").
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, Clauses 266 and 267 which I am moving to delete from the Bill were marker clauses to cover the detail proposed for the patents county court. I mentioned to your Lordships on Report that the precise shape of Clause 266 was likely to change. This is the new shape of it.
I originally intended to create this new jurisdiction by adding new sections to the County Courts Act 1984. Having considered the matter and with advice, I now consider that it would be better if the more direct approach of the clauses forming part of this Bill were adopted. The new jurisdiction will therefore be created by analogy with that of divorce county courts which have national jurisdiction, rather than following the original pattern of admiralty jurisdiction which is exercised locally by combining county court districts.
This clause repeats, for the most part, those provisions which were contained in the new Section 31A of the County Courts Act.
The first subsection (identical in principle to that in Clause 266) enables one or more county courts to be appointed by statutory instrument to hear such descriptions of proceedings relating to patents and designs as may be prescribed. There has been one significant amendment to the scope of the jurisdiction order. At Committee the noble Lord, Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran, raised doubts about the desirability of including the words
"or other intellectual property and related matters"
in the new Section 31A(2)(a).
I undertook then to look again at the noble Lord's point and I have now done so, concluding that they gave an unintended breadth to the power to confer jurisdiction by referring to the words "or other intellectual property". However, I believe that it may be wise to retain the phrase "and related matters". Although they do not appear in this particular amendment, that matter may well be raised in another place. The principal purpose of the amendment is to give effect to the point which the noble Lord, Lord Lloyd, raised.
The second subsection represents a slight change from the previous provision, since it refers to an England and Wales jurisdiction rather than one defined by county court districts. In fact, since only one court will be designated, at least at the outset, this represents no change in practice. It may also be simpler as a matter of drafting. Historically, the county court's jurisdiction has been exercised primarily with regard to monetary claims of one kind

721
or another. The range of remedies in patents and design proceedings is liable to be much wider than in ordinary civil proceedings and may be unaccompanied by any financial claim.
The third subsection makes it clear that the county court will have power to grant an injunction or order for delivery up, for example, although no financial claim is made. The fourth subsection allows for transitional arrangements covering proceedings pending in the event of any part of the special jurisdiction being discontinued. This subsection repeats the provision presently in the new Section 31A(4) of the County Courts Act. There is no change of substance proposed.
The fifth subsection separates the new jurisdiction from that of the county court at present. This will leave untouched in the ordinary county court any contractual disputes relating to patents which are presently dealt with there. There is no change here from the provision in the new Section 31A(5). I beg to move.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, my noble friend Lord Morton of Shuna raised certain points at the Committee stage of the Bill as regards the clauses and in particular the question of finding the right people to perform, if I may use that expression, in those courts. Having agreed at Committee stage to take the point on board and consider it, perhaps the noble and learned Lord will be able to give us a response on that matter.
My noble friend also raised the question of whether the patents county court, designated by order of the Lord Chancellor in the new amendment, has any specific and particular status as opposed to any other county court or whether it has to change its actors, as it were, when it becomes a patents county court. Perhaps the noble and learned Lord can comment on those two points.
Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran: My Lords, I thank the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack for his reference to what I said concerning the breadth of one of the clauses. I am still unhappy that the words "or related matters" are included in the amendment. I am not sure what that means.
The Lord Chancellor: They are not in the amendment.
Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord. I misunderstood him. Perhaps I may briefly call attention to subsection (1) in Amendment No. 197. It is stated that somehow or other limits should be provided for the amount or value in relation to any description of proceedings within the special jurisdiction of patents county courts. The assessment of limits of amount or value in relation to patents actions is extremely difficult. Frequently, when patent actions are started, one does not know what the patent will be worth. The value of the patent is not really determined until after proceedings have come to an end. I therefore wonder whether, in subsection (2)—
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, I apologise. Is the noble Lord speaking to Amendment No. 196 or
722
Amendment No. 197? I understood that the noble and learned Lord had not spoken to Amendment No. 197.
Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran: My Lords, I am very sorry to have caused confusion.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, the two amendments are closely related. However, I moved Amendment No. 196. We shall come to Amendment No. 197 in due course. The noble Lord, Lord Williams of Elvel, asked two questions about Amendment No. 196. He asked whether the Lord Chancellor will be able to find or nominate the right person to be a judge of this court. I do not doubt that that will be a difficult operation and one that will not be contemplated until, first, the primary legislation is in place and, secondly, an order under it is made. It will be quite difficult to find the right person but I believe that it will be possible.
The noble Lord asked whether the people who are in the county court for other purposes will be able to function in the patents county court. The answer is yes. The patents county court will be a county court. The difference between the patents court and other county courts relates to jurisdiction. The patents court will be special in its jurisdiction but that does not preclude officers being officers both of the patents county court and of another court. Whether that would necessarily be the right thing to do is a matter that would fall to be determined in detail when the precise arrangements were made.
The noble Lord, Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran, asked about Amendment No. 196. The amendment as proposed restricts the descriptions of proceedings to those relating to patents and designs and does not include the words "and related matters". I mentioned that I am still doubtful whether it ought to include "and related matters'. The noble Lord is rather against that, and it may be that his view should prevail. When one says "relating to patents and designs", that may be slightly narrow to cover all the types of action that may arise out of a patent or design. Certainly, I intend to look into that matter further as the Bill goes to another place. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
9.45 p.m.
The Lord Chancellor The Lord Chancellor moved Amendment No. 197:
After Clause 266. insert the following new clause:
("Financial limits in relation to proceedings within special jurisdiction of patents county court.
.—(1) Her Majesty may by Order in Council provide for limits of amount or value in relation to any description of proceedings within the special jurisdiction of a patents county court.
(2) If a limit is imposed on the amount of a claim of any description and the plaintiff has a cause of action for more than that amount, he may abandon the excess; in which case a patents county court shall have jurisdiction to hear and determine the action, but the plaintiff may not recover more than that amount.
(3) Where the court has jurisdiction to hear and determine an action by virtue of subsection (2), the judgment of the court in the action is in full discharge of all demands in respect of the cause of action, and entry of the judgment shall be made accordingly.
(4) If the parties agree, by a memorandum signed by them or by their respective solicitors or other agents, that a patents county court shall have jurisdiction in any proceedings, that court shall have

723
jurisdiction to hear and detemine the proceedings notwithstanding any limit imposed under this section.
(5) No recommendation shall be made to Her Majesty to make an Order under this section unless a draft of the Order has been laid before and approved by a resolution of each House of Parliament.")
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, this clause introduces a number of procedural provisions for the patents county court. The order-making power to set a limit of amount in relation to any proceedings within the patents county court jurisdiction was originally contained in the new Section 31B of the County Courts Act in Clause 266 and is repeated here. So as not to confine the power to limit jurisdiction to money claims, the clause has been extended to limits of "amount and value". It could now, for instance, be applied to the value of a patent in a case where injunctive relief alone is sought. It remains to be seen, however, whether this is a desirable thing to do. What we are doing here is providing the necessary power.
The second and third subsections repeat the provisions of Section 17 of the County Courts Act. They allow a litigant to limit the amount of his claim so that his case can be heard in the patents county court. The fourth subsection allows the parties by agreement to waive the financial limit.
Perhaps I may take this opportunity to answer the question raised, a little prematurely, by the noble Lord, Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran. It is true that the amount involved in a claim may be difficult to estimate at the outset. On the other hand, one may have some idea of it. The powers in subsection (2) allow one, even if one thinks that the true value of the claim may be more than the jurisdiction limit, to go ahead so long as one is prepared to limit the amount for which judgment is sought to the amount for which the limit is set. The idea is to provide a machinery for limiting the size of matters that may be litigated in the patents county court. It follows the provisions to which I have referred, and while this is primary legislation. I think it is right to take this power. Precisely how it may be exercised may be a matter of detail to be considered later on. With those explanations I beg to move.
Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord for his explanation of the matters that I raised rather in advance of my time. If I may say so, the noble and learned Lord has been going rather fast this evening but I never thought that I should be ahead of him by one clause at any stage in the proceedings. I should like to thank him very much indeed for the explanation that he has given.
Lord Morton of Shuna: My Lords, the position of a Scottish lawyer who talks about the patents county court is rather strange and I am very diffident about speaking. It appears to me that perhaps this provision misses the real opportunity that may have occurred in this legislation to make a material change in the procedure of the patents county court. I am referring to the opportunity to change the function of the judge from supervising in the way to which one is accustomed, that is to say a kind of adversarial system, to undertaking what is far more of an inquisitorial role, in which he would say, "This is a
724
simple point which should be dealt with by the county court even if its value is so much", or "This is a difficult problem and it should be dealt with by the High Court, even though its value is less than so much".
That is the real point at which one should be looking in this type of provision because if a person of small means is claiming a patent and a very large company with vast financial resources is asserting its rights, so far as I can see that company can almost force the case into the more expensive court, when in fact the point to be decided may be a fairly simple one and suitable for the county court.
I am sorry therefore that the provisions do not appear to go very far towards giving the judge the power to say, "This is suitable for court A and that is suitable for court B", which would be possible if the judge were given far more inquisitorial powers.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, it seems to be my lot tonight to be one step behind. I think that the point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Morton of Shuna, is at least to some extent covered by Amendment No. 198 which I propose to move in a moment. However fast I go, I cannot catch them up.
The question of the inquisitorial nature of the proceedings to some extent is answered by the power to obtain a report which is given in relation, first, to the patents county court and then to the High Court itself, so that the judge will have a right to obtain a report which can affect the course of proceedings. Of course there will be scope for procedural rules for the patents county court which may further assist the matter upon which the noble Lord has commented. So, with respect. I do not think that any opportunity has been lost in the way that he suggested. I believe that, should it be thought right, all the matters that the noble Lord has mentioned can be encompassed under the primary legislative provisions that we are proposing.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
The Lord Chancellor The Lord Chancellor moved Amendment No. 198:
After Clause 266, insert the following new clause:
("Transfer of proceedings between High Court and patents county court.
.—(1) No order shall be made under section 41 of the County Courts Act 1984 (power of High Court to order proceedings to be transferred from the county court) in respect of proceedings within the special jurisdiction of a patents county court.
(2) In considering in relation to proceedings within the special jurisdiction of a patents county court whether an order should be made under section 40 or 42 of the County Courts Act 1984 (transfer of proceedings from or to the High Court), the court shall have regard to the financial position of the parties and may order the transfer of the proceedings to a patents county court or, as the case may be, refrain from ordering their transfer to the High Court notwithstanding that the proceedings are likely to raise an important question of fact or law.")
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, this new clause is a necessary procedural amendment to facilitate the work of the patents county court and ensure that the criteria for transfer used in relation to current county court business are suitably adapted to cover the new jurisdiction. It is an important consequence of our aim of keeping costs down in patent proceedings that there should be as few obstacles as possible in the way of transferring cases

725
down to the patents county court. The power contained in Section 41 of the County Courts Act 1984 allowing the High Court to order proceedings to be transferred out of the county court will, therefore, by virtue of subsection (1), not apply to proceedings within the patents county court's special jurisdiction. In doing this we accept the recommendation of the committee on patent litigation that the scope of intervention by the patent court in the day-to-day management of the patents county court's business should be restricted.
Subsection (2) qualifies, for proceedings within the special jurisdiction, the considerations relevant to whether an order should be made under Section 40 or 42 of the County Courts Act, which govern the transfer of proceedings from, or to, the High Court. In considering whether an order is made the financial position of the parties shall be a major consideration, notwithstanding that the case is likely to raise an important question of fact or law.
The purpose of this amendment is twofold: to ensure that the small litigant, with limited financial resources, is not deterred from bringing his case in the patents county court by the prospect that it might be transferred to the patent court, and to ensure that the small litigant in the patent court is not financially penalised by being forced to continue his case there. The court will have a choice in the matter, and financial considerations will not necessarily outweigh the importance of any question of fact or law raised by the case.
I should add that this is not a wholly new provision. By virtue of Section 106(1) of the Patents Act 1977 the court, in considering the compensation of an employee for certain inventions, and in determining whether, and what, costs and expenses shall be awarded to any party, shall have regard to all the relevant circumstances, including the financial position of the parties.
The transfer provisions will as a whole place a not inconsiderable responsibility on the judiciary. If the patents county court proposals are to be effective, small litigants must have confidence that they can have access to affordable proceedings notwithstanding the weight and complexity of their case. I am confident that the judges of the patent court and the judges of the patents county court when appointed will exercise this provision firmly and with regard to the vital need to reduce cost and improve access to the courts.
This squarely deals with the point that the noble Lord, Lord Morton of Shuna, was raising a few minutes ago. Putting the financial position of the parties in the forefront of this provision deals with it as effectively as can be done. I beg to move.
Lord Morton of Shuna: My Lords, like the noble Lord, Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran, I apologise for getting ahead of the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor. It is an unusual circumstance. Although this provision deals with the financial position of the parties—I accept that, and it is very valuable—it does not deal with patent litigation which, although fairly major, is fairly simple and should be able to be forced—whatever the financial position of the parties—into the county court if the judge thinks that that is the
726
appropriate court. I am suggesting that the inquisitorial powers, of which I am in favour, and which are the custom in Europe, could be extended further.
Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran: My Lords, I thank the noble and learned Lord for his explanation of the procedures which provide a very valuable measure for reducing the costs of litigation for small business firms. I should like to express very humbly my appreciation of the explanation that he gave of Amendment No. 198.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
The Lord Chancellor The Lord Chancellor moved Amendment No. 199:
After Clause 266, insert the following new clause:
("Limitation of costs where pecuniary claim could hare been brought in patents county court.
.—(1) Where an action is commenced in the High Court which could have been commenced in a patents county court and in which a claim for a pecuniary remedy is made, then, subject to the provisions of this section, if the plaintiff recovers less than the prescribed amount, he is not entitled to recover any more costs than those to which he would have been entitled if the action had been brought in the county court.
(2) For this purpose a plaintiff shall be treated as recovering the full amount recoverable in respect of his claim without regard to any deduction made in respect of matters not falling to be taken into account in determining whether the action could have been commenced in a patents county court.
(3) This section does not affect any question as to costs if it appears to the High Court that there was reasonable ground for supposing the amount recoverable in respect of the plaintiffs claim to be in excess of the prescribed amount.
(4) The High Court, if satisfied—

(a) that there was sufficient reason for bringing the action in the High Court, or

(b) that the defendant, or one of the defendants, objected to the transfer of the action to a county court,

may make an order allowing the costs or any part of the costs of the High Court scale or on such one of the county court scales as it may direct.
(5) This section does not apply to proceedings brought by the Crown.
(6) In this section "the prescribed amount" means such amount as may be prescribed by Her Majesty for the purposes of this section by Order in Council.
(7) No recommendation shall be made to Her Majesty to make an Order under this section unless a draft of the Order has been laid before and approved by a resolution of each House of Parliament.").
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, this clause imposes a costs sanction on any plaintiff who brings a case in the patent court which he could have brought in the patents county court, if he recovers damages of less than a certain figure. That prescribed amount will be set by order, and I have in mind, at least initially, a figure of possibly £60,000. We seek to ensure that smaller, run-of-the-mill cases—and I have in mind here patent infringement claims for damages—are dealt with in the patents county court.
The provisions embodied in this clause all derive from existing provisions contained in the County Courts Act 1984. The precedents followed have been the costs limitation applicable to contract and tort actions commenced in the High Court and similar provisions covering Admiralty proceedings. The costs limitation will not apply in cases where the High Court is satisfied that the plaintiff had reasonable grounds for supposing that the damages he would recover would be greater than the prescribed amount.

727
This deals with the point that the noble Lord, Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran, mentioned—that it may be difficult to assess that and it might be reasonable to have assessed it rather higher than the judge may ultimately decide.
Nor will a plaintiff necessarily be penalised if the High Court is satisfied that there were sufficient reasons for bringing the case there, or that one of the defendants objected to transfer down. Nor under subsection (1) will the plaintiff in a case which has been transferred into the High Court be penalised. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
10 p.m.
The Lord Chancellor The Lord Chancellor moved Amendment No. 200:
After Clause 266, insert the following new clause:
("Proceedings in patents county court.
.—(1) Where a county court is designated a patents county court, the Lord Chancellor shall nominate a person entitled to sit as a judge of that court as the patents judge.
(2) County court rules shall make provision for securing that, so far as is practicable and appropriate—

(a) proceedings within the special jurisdiction of a patents county court are dealt with by the patents judge, and

(b) the judge, rather than a registrar or other officer of the court, deals with interlocutory matters in the proceedings.

(3) County court rules shall make provision empowering a patents county court in proceedings within its special jurisdiction, on or without the application of any party—

(a) to appoint scientific advisers or assessors to assist the court, Or

(b) to order the Patent Office to inquire into and report on any question of fact or opinion.

(4) Where the court exercises either of those powers on the application of a party, the remuneration or fees payable shall be at such rate as may be determined in accordance with county court rules and shall be costs of the proceedings unless otherwise ordered by the judge.
(5) Where the court exercises either of those powers of its own motion, the remuneration or fees payable shall be at such rate as may be determined by the Lord Chancellor with the approval of the Treasury and shall be paid out of money provided by Parliament.").
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, the amendment which constitutes this new clause is derived from the recommendations of the Oulton Committee, to which I have already referred. It covers two distinct areas affecting proceedings in the Patents County Court: first, the nomination and duties of a judge and, secondly, the appointment and remuneration of advisers or assessors to assist the court, and the provision of reports by the Patent Office. This is the point to which I referred a moment ago as part of the development towards an inquisitorial procedure.
Subsections (1) and (2)(a) reflect the importance we attach to the report's recommendation that business within the new jurisdiction should only be handled by a judge with experience of patent litigation. They will ensure that not only is a suitably qualified judge appointed to each court but also that he will handle, as far as is possible, all proceedings within the special jurisdiction.
The committee envisaged that the patents judge would take charge of both the interlocutory proceedings and the trial. Subsection (2)(b) provides for this. It is not, however, our intention to cast doubt
728
on the power of the county court registrar to exercise his general statutory jurisdiction concerning such matters as enforcement proceedings and record keeping.
Subsection (3) allows county court rules to provide for the court to have a power, on or without any party's application, to appoint scientific advisers or assessors to assist the court, or to order the Patent Office to inquire into and report on any question of fact or opinion. There already exist within the County Courts Act 1984, the Patents Act 1977 and the Rules of the Supreme Court a number of provisions covering the appointment of scientific advisers to assist the court, or to inquire and report on questions of fact or opinion, and the appointment of assessors to assist the court.
This subsection repeats the existing provisions and introduces a new power, stressed by the committee in its report, to order the Patent Office to provide a report. Such a report will be confined exclusively to technical matters, guiding the judge towards a decision but not pre-empting it. These provisions for obtaining expert assistance in patent proceedings will, we believe, help the court to deal with proceedings in an efficient and informed manner.
The provisions concerning the defraying of remuneration for providers of expert assistance reflect the principles embodied in the existing legislation. Where the court exercises either of the powers in subsection (3) on the application of a party, the remuneration or fees payable will be determined by county court rules and will be costs of the proceedings, unless the judge orders otherwise. If the court exercises either power of its own motion, the remuneration and fees will be paid out of public funds. I beg to move.
Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran: My Lords, it is well known to the noble and learned Lord that possible reduction in costs in patent cases is largely dependent on a proper definition at an early stage of the issues to be decided and upon the firmness of the judge in giving directions to that end. I assume that the noble and learned Lord will have in mind that costs in patent actions sometimes escalate if the judge is not firm about experiments that have to be made. Once one side starts having experiments there are reply experiments, but no doubt that will be taken care of in the usual way by the appointment of a very firm judge in these matters.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I entirely accept the point that has been raised by the noble Lord, Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran. It may not be easy to obtain a suitable judge, but one of the characteristics that one would like to see in the judge is not only that he be an excellent judge but that he has the firmness that the noble Lord has described.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 267 [Right of audience in patents county court]:
The Lord Chancellor The Lord Chancellor moved Amendment No. 201:
Leave out clause 267 and insert the following new clause:
("Rights and duties of registered patent agents in relation to proceedings in patents county court.
.— (1) A registered patent agent may do, in or in connection with proceedings in a patents county court which are within the special jurisdiction of that court, anything which a solicitor of the Supreme Court might do, other than prepare a deed.
(2) The Lord Chancellor may by regulations provide that the right conferred by subsection (I) shall be subject to such conditions and restrictions as appear to the Lord Chancellor to be necessary or expedient; and different provision may be made for different descriptions of proceedings.
(3) A patents county court has the same power to enforce an undertaking given by a registered patent agent acting in pursuance of this section as it has, by virtue of section 142 of the County Courts Act 1984, in relation to a solicitor.
(4) Nothing in section 143 of the County Courts Act 1984 (prohibition on persons other than solicitors receiving remuneration) applies to a registered patent agent acting in pursuance of this section.
(5) The provisions of county court rules prescribing scales of costs to be paid to solicitors apply in relation to registered patent agents acting in pursuance of this section.
(6) Regulations 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.").
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, this amendment develops, and replaces, the second of the two marker clauses. It covers the rights and duties of patent agents in relation to patents county court proceedings.
The first subsection of this amendment restates the principle expressed in Section 60A(1) of the County Courts Act 1984, which presently appears in Clause 267. The actual scope of the provision is in fact slightly wider since Section 60A(1) would not have allowed a patent agent to conduct that part of the proceedings not within the courtroom. This amendment will put him on the same footing as a solicitor of the Supreme Court in the conduct of proceedings.
In the course of proceedings a party's legal representative may give various undertakings to his client or to the court and it is an important element in the confidence placed in that representative that there should be a sanction if he fails to make these good. Section 142 of the County Courts Act 1984 allows the county court to enforce an undertaking given by a solicitor. This amendment extends that power to a patent agent.
Section 60A(1) as it stands will not allow a registered patent agent to conduct litigation in the patents county court for reward. In order to allow for this it is necessary to disapply the prohibition on persons other than solicitors receiving remuneration in respect of a registered patent agent acting for a client in the patents county court.
The amendment at subsection (5) is needed to ensure that where a party represented by a patent agent in patents county court proceedings becomes entitled to costs against the other party, the patent agent's bill can be taxed in the same way as that of a solicitor. The County Courts Act currently provides for the county court rule committee to prescribe scales of costs to be paid to counsel and solicitors. This amendment widens that reference and allows patent agents to come under the existing scale provisions already drawn up under the rules. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Schedule 1 [Copyright: transitional provisions and savings]:
Lord Beaverbrook Lord Beaverbrook moved Amendment No. 202:
Page 125, line 42, leave out from ("I") to end of line 44.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving this amendment I shall also speak to Amendment No. 203. Paragraph 7 of Schedule 1 is concerned with the subsistence of copyright in films made prior to commencement.
The first amendment in this group is pure drafting. The second limb of paragraph 7(2) is superfluous in view of the general proposition in paragraph 9 of Schedule 1.
The second amendment takes account of the fact that the sound-track of a film is treated by this Bill as a sound recording and not part of a film, which is the reverse of the treatment under the 1956 Act. The new paragraph 7A in Schedule 1 will expressly apply this new regime from commencement of the Bill to films and their sound-tracks made after the commencement of the 1956 Act. I should mention that this would have been the effect of the Bill in any event, but we thought it better to say so than to leave its effect to be teased out by interpretation of other provisions. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Beaverbrook Lord Beaverbrook moved Amendments Nos. 203 to 208:
Page 125. line 47, at end insert—
("7A. A film sound-track to which section 13(9) of the 1956 Act applied before commencement (film to be taken to include sounds in associated sound-track) shall be treated for the purposes of the new copyright provisions not as part of the film, but as a sound recording.").
Page 127, line 44, at end insert—
("(1A) Section 18(3) (restricted acts to include hiring of copies of sound recordings, films or computer programs) does not apply in relation to a copy of a sound recording, film or computer program acquired by any person before commencement for the purpose of hiring it to the public.").
Page 129, line 48, leave out ("not so suffer modification") and insert ("to object to derogatory treatment").
Page 130, line 13, at end insert—
("21A. The right conferred by section (Right to privacy of certain photographs and films) (right to privcy of certain photographs and films) does not apply to photographs taken or films made before commencement.").
Schedule 2, page 136, line 26, leave out sub-paragraph (1) and insert—
("(1) Where the doing of a particular act is specifically authorised by an Act of Parliament, whenever passed, then, unless the Act provides otherwise, the doing of that act does not infringe the rights conferred by Part II.").
Page 136, line 31, at end insert—
(''Incidental copying in course of use of work in electronic form
10A.—(1) This paragraph applies to work whose use in electronic form ordinarily involves incidental copying of the whole or part of the work.
(2) Any such copying which a purchaser of a copy of the work is permitted to do without infringing the rights conferred by Part II, by express or implied consent or by virtue of any rule of law, and in respect of which he incurs no further obligation as to payment or otherwise, may also be done without infringement of those rights by any person into whose hands that copy of the work subsequently comes.
(3) Expressions used in this paragraph have the same meaning as in section (Incidental copying in course of use of work in electronic form).").
On Question, amendments agreed to.
[Amendment No. 209 not moved.]
Lord Beaverbrook Lord Beaverbrook moved Amendment No. 210:
Page 137, line 14, at end insert—
("Recordings for purposes of supervision and control of broadcasts and cable programmes
12A.—(1) The rights conferred by Part II are not infringed by—

(a) the making or use of recordings by the Independent Broadcasting Authority for the purposes mentioned in section 4(7) of the Broadcasting Act 1981 (maintenance of supervision and control over programmes and advertisements); or

(b) anything done under or in pursuance of provision included in a contract between a programme contractor and the Authority in accordance with section 21 of that Act.

(2) The rights conferred by Part II are not infringed by anything done under or in pursuance of—

(a) a notice or direction given under section 16 of the Cable and Broadcasting Act 1984 (power of Cable Authority to require production of recordings); or

(b) a condition included in a licence by virtue of section 35 of that Act (duty of Authority to secure that recordings are available for certain purposes).

(3) Expressions used in this paragraph have the same meaning as in section (Recordings for purposes of supervision and control of broadcasts and cable programmes).")
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Schedule 3 [Registered designs: minor and consequential amendments of 1949 Act]:
Lord Beaverbrook Lord Beaverbrook moved Amendment No. 211:
Page 140, line 30, leave out from ("country)") to end of line 31 and insert (", for subsections (2) and (3) substitute—").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this is purely a drafting amendment which makes no changes of substance. The amendment will introduce a form of words into paragraph 7 which will be consistent with that used in other paragraphs of Schedule 3. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
The Lord Chancellor The Lord Chancellor moved Amendments Nos. 212 and 213:
Page 142, leave out lines 20 to 22 and insert—

("(a) in England and Wales, the High Court or a patents county court (see Part VI of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988),

(b) in Scotland, the Court of Session, and

(c) in Northern Ireland, the High Court.").

Page 142, line 23, after ("court") insert ("with respect to proceedings in the High Court").
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, I have already spoken to these amendments. I beg to move.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Lord Beaverbrook Lord Beaverbrook moved Amendments Nos. 214 and 215:
Page 145, line 23, at end insert—
("(2A) At the appropriate place insert—
" "author", in relation to a design, has the meaning given by section 2(3) and (4);".").
Page 145, line 33, at end insert—
("(6A) at the appropriate place insert—
" "employee", "employment" and "employer" refer to employment under a contract of service or of apprenticeship;".").
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Schedule 4 [The Registered Designs Act 1949 as amended]:
Lord Beaverbrook Lord Beaverbrook moved Amendments Nos. 216 to 222:
Page 147, line 13, after ("intended") insert ("by the author of the design").
Page 147, line 19, leave out ("article") to ("aesthetic") in line 20 and insert ("if the appearance of the article is not material, that is, if").
Page 147, line 46, leave out ("a person") and insert ("an employee").
Page 148, line 9, leave out ("subsection (1)") and insert ("this Act"). Page 151, line 51, leave out ("in the United Kingdom or elsewhere").
Page 151, line 52, after ("made") insert ("in the United Kingdom or elsewhere").
Page 152, line 4, after ("(1)") insert ("or (3)").
On Question, amendments agreed to.
The Lord Chancellor The Lord Chancellor moved Amendments Nos. 223 and 224:
Page 161, leave out lines 35 to 37 and insert—

("(a) in England and Wales, the High Court or a patents county court (see Part VI of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988),

(b) in Scotland, the Court of Session, and

(c) in Northern Ireland, the High Court.").

Page 161, line 38, after ("court") insert ("with respect to proceedings in the High Court").
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, I have already spoken to these amendments. I beg to move.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Lord Beaverbrook Lord Beaverbrook moved Amendments Nos. 225 and 226:
Page 166, line 26, at end insert—
(" "author", in relation to a design, has the meaning given by section 2(3) and (4);").
Page 166, line 36, at end insert—
(" "employee", "employment" and "employer" refer to employment under a contract of service or of apprenticeship;").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I have already spoken to these amendments. I beg to move.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Schedule 5 [Patents: minor amendments]:
Lord Beaverbrook Lord Beaverbrook moved Amendment No. 227:
Page 173, line 41, leave out paragraph 5 and insert—
("5.—(1) Section 28 of the Patents Act 1977 (restoration of lapsed patents) is amended as follows.
(2) For subsection (1) (application for restoration within period of one year) substitute—
"(1) Where a patent has ceased to have effect by reason of a failure to pay any renewal fee, an application for the restoration of the patent may be made to the Comptroller within the prescribed period.
(1A) Rules prescribing that period may contain such transitional provisions and savings as appear to the Secretary of State to be necessary or expedient.".").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, with the leave of the House, in moving Amendment No. 226, I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 228 and 229. The first of these amendments concerns the period during which a lapsed patent may be restored. At Report stage my noble friend Lord Stockton suggested that it might be better if the period were prescribed by rules made by the Secretary of State rather than by

733
the primary legislation. This would make the period chosen easier to change if, in practice, it proved to be wrong; either too long or too short. I said we were happy to follow this approach but needed time to consider the precise wording and to review the transitional provisions. I trust my noble friend will find that the present amendment achieves what he intended.
The other two amendments, Amendments Nos. 228 and 229, are merely consequential drafting changes. I beg to move.
The Earl of Stockton: My Lords, I thank the Minister for following up my suggestion. This is entirely satisfactory.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Beaverbrook Lord Beaverbrook moved Amendments Nos, 228 and 229:
Page 174, leave out line 11 and insert ("(3) In".
Page 174, line 14, leave out ("above amendment") and insert ("amendment in sub-paragraph (3)").
On Question, amendments agreed to.
The Lord Chancellor The Lord Chancellor moved Amendment No. 230:
Page 177. line 29, at end insert—
("Proceedings before the Patents Court or the comptroller
17A. In the Patents Act 1977, after section 99 (general powers of the court) insert—
"Power to order report hi Patent Office.
99A.—(1) Rules of court shall make provision empowering the Patents Court in any proceedings before it under this Act, on or without the application of any party, to order the Patent Office to inquire into and report on any question of fact or opinion.
(2) Where the court makes such an order on the application of a party, the fee payable shall be at such rate as may be determined in accordance with rules of court and shall be costs of the proceedings unless otherwise ordered by the court.
(3) Where the court makes such an order of its own motion, the fee payable shall be at such rate as may be determined by the Lord Chancellor with the approval of the Treasury and shall be paid out of money provided by Parliament.".
17B. For section 102 of the Patents Act 1977 (right of audience in patent proceedings) substitute—
"Right of audience, &c. in proceedings before comptroller.
102.—(1) A party to proceedings before the comptroller under this Act, or under any treaty or international convention to which the United Kingdom is a party, may appear before the comptroller in person or be represented by any person whom he desires to represent him.
(2) No offence is committed under the enactments relating to the preparation of documents by persons not legally qualified by reason only of the preparation by any person of a document, other than a deed, for use in such proceedings.
(3) Subsection (1) has effect subject to rules made under section 258 of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988 (power of comptroller to refuse to recognise certain agents).
(4) In its application to proceedings in relation to applications for, or otherwise in connection with, European patents, this section has effect subject to any restrictions imposed by or under the European Patent Convention.
Right of audience, &c. in proceedings on appeal from the comptroller.
102A.—1 A solicitor of the Supreme Court may appear and be heard on behalf of any party to an appeal under this Act from the comptroller to the Patents Court.
(2) A registered patent agent or a member of the Bar not in actual practice may do, in or in connection with proceedings on an appeal under this Act from the comptroller to the patents Court, anything which a solicitor of the Supreme Court might do, other than prepare a deed.
(3) The Lord Chancellor may by regulations—

(a) provide that the right conferred by subsection (2) shall be subject to such conditions and restrictions as appear to the Lord Chancellor to be necessary or expedient, and

(b) apply to persons exercising that right such statutory provisions, rules of court and other rules of law and practice applying to solicitors as may be specified in the regulations;

and different provision may be made for different descriptions of proceedings.
(4) Regulations 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.
(5) This section is without prejudice to the right of counsel to appear before the High Court."."),
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, I have already spoken to this amendment. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Schedule 6 [Provisions for the benefit of the Hospital for Sick Children]:
Lord Beaverbrook Lord Beaverbrook moved Amendment No. 231:
Page 178, line 37, leave out from ("copyright)") to ("be") in line 38.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I have already spoken to this amendment. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
10.15 p.m.
Schedule 7 [Consequential amendments: general]:
Lord Beaverbrook Lord Beaverbrook moved Amendment No. 232:
Page 182, line 26, at end insert—
("and in paragraph 10A (services of European patent attorneys) for "section 84(7) of the Patent Act 1977" substitute "Part V of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988".").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving this amendment I speak also to Amendment No. 233. The paragraphs of Schedule 7 in question make consequential amendments to the Fair Trading Act 1973 and the Restrictive Trade Practices Act 1976. Amendments to these paragraphs made on Report had the effect of reprieving certain provisions and schedules to the 1973 and 1976 Acts which were to have been deleted.
However, we have now realised that these reinstated provisions include references to Section 84 of the Patents Act 1977 which is going to be replaced by provisions in Part V of this Bill. The present amendments are therefore intended to correct the references. This is not strictly necessary because the Interpretation Act would have led to the correct result, but we feel that in the interests of clarity the amendments should be made. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Beaverbrook Lord Beaverbrook moved Amendment No. 233:
Page 182, line 41, at end insert—
("and in paragraph 10A (services of European patent attorneys) for "section 84(7) of the Patent Act 1977" substitute "Part V of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988".").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I have already spoken to this amendment. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Beaverbrook Lord Beaverbrook moved Amendment No. 234:
Page 183, line 31, at end insert—
("Resale Prices Act 1976 (c.53)
16A. In section 10(4) of the Resale Prices Act 1976 (patented articles: articles to be treated in same way), in paragraph (a) after "protected" insert "by design right or".").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, the Resale Prices Act 1976 prohibits resale price maintenance. Special provision is made in Section 10 for what are rather artificially called patented articles. I say "artificially" because the meaning of that expression is extended by subsection (4) of that section to cover registered designs and plant breeders' rights. It seems to us that it should also cover design right, and the amendment would so provide. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
The Lord Chancellor The Lord Chancellor moved Amendment No. 235:
Page 183, line 33, leave out paragraph 17 and insert—
("17. In section 57 of the Patents Act 1977 (rights of third parties in respect of Crown use of patent), in the closing words of subsection (1) (which relate to the use of models or documents), after "copyright" insert "or design right".
17A. In section 105 of the Patents Act 1977 (privilege in Scotland for communications relating to patent proceedings), omit "within the meaning of section 104 above", make the existing text subsection (1), and after it insert—
"(2) In this section—
"patent proceedings" means proceedings under this Act or any of the relevant conventions, before the court, the comptroller or the relevant convention court, whether contested or uncontested and including an application for a patent; and
"the relevant conventions" means the European Patent Convention, the Community Patent Convention and the Patent Cooperation Treaty.".
17B. In section 123(7) of the Patents Act 1977 (publication of case reports by the comptroller) —

(a) for "and registered designs" substitute "registered designs or design right",

(b) for "and copyright" substitute ", copyright and design right".

17C. In section 130(1) of the Patents Act 1977 (interpretation), in the definition of "court", for paragraph (a) substitute—
"(a) as respects England and Wales, the High Court or a patents county court (see Part VI of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988);".").
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, in moving this amendment I shall speak also to Amendment No. 241. These amendments contained in Schedules 7 and 8 to the Bill are all consequential and technical in nature. If your Lordships desire a more detailed explanation I will be happy to give it.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Beaverbrook Lord Beaverbrook moved Amendments Nos. 236 to 238:
Page 184, line 30, after ("make") insert ("and use").
Page 184, line 30, leave out from ("them") to end of line 34.
Page 184, line 39, leave out fro beginning to end of line 4 on page 185.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I have already spoken to these amendments. I beg to move.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Lord Beaverbrook Lord Beaverbrook moved Amendment No. 239:
Page 185, line 20, after ("trade mark,") insert ("service mark,").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 239 I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 240 and 244. Paragraphs 25 and
736
28 of Schedule 7 amend the company laws of Great Britain and Northern Ireland to take account of design right. In the case of England, Wales and Northern Ireland, but not Scotland, where the relevant provision is slightly different, this is done by a restatement of the definition of intellectual property. That definition includes a reference to trade marks but fails to mention service marks. Amendments Nos. 239 and 240 remedy that deficiency.
The existing provisions in the Companies Act 1985 and the Companies (Northern Ireland) Order 1986 already refer to service marks by virtue of amendments contained in the Patents, Designs and Marks Acts 1986. Those amendments accordingly become irrelevant and are repealed by Amendment No. 244.
I should perhaps mention that Amendment No. 245 has remained on the Marshalled List in error and I shall not be moving it. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Beaverbrook Lord Beaverbrook moved Amendment No. 240:
Page 185, line 44, after ("trade mark,") insert ("service mark.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this amendment has already been spoken to. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Schedule 8 [Repeals]:
The Lord Chancellor The Lord Chancellor moved Amendment No. 241:
Page 187, line 53, column 3, leave out ("Sections 104 and 105") and insert—
("Section 104. In section 105, the words "within the meaning of section 104 above".").
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, I have already spoken to this amendment. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Beaverbrook Lord Beaverbrook moved Amendments Nos. 242 to 244:
Page 188, line 19, column 3, at end insert ("Section 16(4) and (5).").
Page 188, line 21, column 3, after ("35") insert ("(2) and").
Page 188, line 35, column 3, at end insert ("in paragraph 1(2)(k) the words "subsection (1)(j) of section 396 and" and in paragraph 1(2)(l) the words "subsection (2)(i) of section 93".").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I have already spoken to these amendments. I beg to move.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
[Amendment No. 245 not moved.]
An amendment (privilege) made.
Lord Beaverbrook: My Lords I beg to move, That the Bill do now pass.
When my noble friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry commended this Bill to your Lordships on Second Reading, he described it as a long and technical one. After four months in your Lordships' House and consideration of nearly 1,300 amendments, I doubt whether any of your Lordships would disagree with that assessment. My noble friend also described it as an important Bill. Again, I believe that to be an accurate description since this Bill

737
provides a framework of copyright and designs law which will have to last for many years. Indeed, I doubt whether many of your Lordships would welcome another copyright Bill too soon.
There is a general consensus both within your Lordships' House and in the outside world that the law of copyright and designs is due for reform. On some issues there is broad agreement on what needs to be done. Unfortunately, on many other issues the consensus rapidly breaks down. There arc many differing views on the right way forward. In any discussions on intellectual property there is an inherent tension between the creators and the owners of rights on the one hand and the users on the other. One side wants very strong protection. The other is inconvenienced by the rights and often presses for their dilution. Indeed, someone who is both a supplier and a user of intellectual property may be in the position of facing both ways and arguing for greater protection for his intellectual property while at the same time pressing for restrictions in the rights of those whose works he uses.
This has been therefore sometimes a controversial Bill although not usually on party political lines. Some of the livelier debates have been conducted between your Lordships on the same side of the Chamber rather than across the Floor. Given these factors and the technical complexity of the Bill, it is perhaps not surprising that this Bill has occupied your Lordshps for seven days in Committee, for four days on Report and for a considerable time today. I believe that the time and effort have all been worthwhile. What was a good Bill is now a very good Bill. If, as I trust, your Lordships agree that this Bill should pass, it will go to another place much improved.
The overall structure and content of the Bill has not changed greatly. There have been only three major additions. First, the provision of a rental right; secondly, the removal of the limitation on fair dealing in respect of commercial research. Last and not least, there has been the provision of a perpetual royalty right for Great Ormond Street Hospital in respect of Peter Pan. Although there have been few major changes, significant changes have been made to the drafting in some of the detailed provisions.
Amendments made to the Bill now total several hundred. They have been prompted almost entirely by comments made in debate in this House. I believe that this reflects great credit upon your Lordships. Our debates have been well informed and of a consistently high standard. This has been commented upon by those who have listened to our deliberations or who have read them in Hansard. As evidenced by the number of amendments we tabled both on Report and today, we have shown ourselves willing to listen to what your Lordships have said and to act when we believe that a good case has been made. The powers of argument and persuasiveness deployed so skilfully in the House have made every case seem a good one. We have had to look at everything very carefully indeed before coming to our conclusions.
It must be said that the debates in your Lordships' House have proved most helpful in our considerations. Many useful suggestions have been made for small changes. Comments have been made
738
which caused us to go back to square one and to re-examine our policy. Sometimes that exercise has shown us that we were wrong; sometimes it has confirmed us in our view. Either way the exercise was worthwhile.
In expressing the thanks of the Government for the care and patience and not inconsiderable expertise that your Lordships have expended on this Bill, it is perhaps invidious to single out individuals; but I feel obliged to mention one or two. On the Benches behind me I should like to mention my noble friends Lord Stockton, Lord Mottistone, Lord Lucas of Chilworth; my noble and learned friend Lord Hailsham and in the later stages my noble friend Lord Jenkin of Roding. They have all made significant contributions. I have not been able to accede to all their wishes as often as I might have liked. However, I am nevertheless grateful for their contributions. I am also grateful to my noble friend Lord Dundee who has helped me so much on this Bench.
On the Cross-Benches we have had the great benefit in Committee of the noble and learned Lords, Lord Denning and Lord Simon, with contributions at various stages from the noble Lord, Lord Hacking. From the other side there have been significant contributions from the noble Lords, Lord Howie of Troon, Lord Gray, Lord Willis and Lord Lloyd of Hampstead, who showed considerable understanding of the complexities of the Bill. We have also had the noble Lord, Lord Kilbracken, whose crusade to improve the drafting of the Bill has prompted a large number of amendments.
I record my thanks also to the noble Lord, Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran, who has played a major role in the proceedings. He has given the benefit of his considerable experience in the field of intellectual property, which combined with his unfailing courtesy and eloquence has done much to facilitate consideration of the Bill.
Last but by no means least, there are the noble Lords, Lord Williams of Elvel and Lord Morton of Shuna. They made their intentions clear at the outset. The noble Lord, Lord Morton of Shuna, promised us that the Opposition would take a full and active part. In the first debate in Committee, the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Elvel, indicated that he would thoroughly probe our intentions to ensure that we all knew what the Bill was about. Both pledges have been amply fulfilled. Many changes to the Bill flow from the persistent probing of noble Lords opposite. Their questioning has been impeccably fair, invariably courteous and, in spite of the complexities of the Bill, seldom based on misunderstanding and misconception.
Some 18 months ago in the debate on the Third Reading of the Financial Services Bill the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Elvel, made some kind remarks welcoming me to this Bench, although promising me some faster bowling in the future. I do not know about the pace on the Bill, but there has certainly been some spin. Noble Lords opposite kept up a barrage of tricky deliveries. Like all good bowlers, they have hunted in pairs. My relief at seeing the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Elvel, leave his place for a short while was always tempered by the

739
realisation that the noble Lord, Lord Morton of Shuna, was coming on fresh to renew the attack.
I pay tribute also to the immense amount of persistence and hard work that my officials at the Department of Trade and Industry have put into the Bill. It has been a monumental task, which has involved them in giving up many nights, evenings and weekends. I thank them for the help that they have given to me, to other noble Lords and to many outside interests that have been pressing us to change provisions in the Bill.
We have all spent a long time on the Bill. I believe that it has been time well spent. It is a Bill that strikes the right balance between protection for the originator and the need that the market has for access to intellectual property of all kinds. It will provide us with a framework of intellectual property law, especially in regard to copyright and designs, that will serve the economy well in the years to come. The Bill is even better equipped to fulfill that function as a result of your Lordships' exhaustive and at times exhausting consideration. I commend it to the House.
Moved, That the Bill do now pass.—(Lord Beaverbrook.)
10.30 p.m.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, when the Bill was first introduced into your Lordships' House it gave us considerable problems in that it was a large Bill which covered a number of subjects and introduced a number of new concepts. As the debates have continued, we on this side have better understood the Government's intentions. As a result of our spin bowling, to use the Minister's expression, we have managed to encourage the Government to improve the Bill. That this has happened is due not to the fact that my noble friend Lord Morton of Shuna is an expert at the googly but to the Government's receptive attitude to arguments put forward in genuine good faith by the Opposition and by members of my own party who for one reason or another have felt it necessary to put forward various points from experience in their own lives.
The first point on which I congratulate the Government is their attitude towards the debates in your Lordships' House. It is an excellent and, in my short experience of your Lordships' House, an unparalleled example, of the way a government can introduce a Bill which is not of a party political nature and say at the outset, "We are prepared to accept all reasonable arguments." They have allowed us, as the Opposition, to feel that we are joining in the creation of proper legislation, rather than simply opposing such legislation that the Government put forward. Therefore, as I have already said, I congratulate the Government on their attitude.
There are many points in the Bill with which we, the Opposition, are not wholly satisfied. I am sure the noble Lord would be the first to admit that some of our points have not been accepted by the Government and no doubt will be debated when the Bill goes to another place. However, we are encouraged by the Government's concessions to reasoned argument and we very much hope that that open-mindedness will continue in another place.
740
We were especially pleased that the Government were able to accede to the rental right in copyright which we felt was an important provision. Then there was the blank-tape levy which we thought that we should support and which will no doubt be debated in another place. In that connection we still feel that the Government's position is somewhat illogical. There are of course many technical points in the Bill which will similarly be debated elsewhere.
However there are three major doubts that we still retain about the Bill, all of which relate to employee rights, which we have discussed at some length but on which we have thus far failed to reach agreement. First, there is the whole concept of design right. In that respect we believe that there may be a different point of view which, again, will no doubt be argued in another place. Secondly, there is Crown copyright. That is another issue which I think still needs a certain amount of airing. Thirdly, there is the smaller issue—although not small in terms of its impact—that arises under Clause 36 which concerns the photocopying of material in educational establishments, namely; which percentage should be appropriate for which quarter? We should merely like to reserve our position on that issue—certainly as a party we would wish to do so.
I am most grateful to the Government for the Peter Pan amendment. In my view this was a remarkable example of how government and opposition can work together to achieve an objective which all our advisers said was "outrageous", and really should not happen. Nevertheless, it was for a desirable end and I think all noble Lords would agree that here was an occasion when Parliament could perhaps put its stamp on a Bill by saying, "This is something we want to do and even though it is outrageous in terms of legality and precedent, nevertheless we believe it is desirable and we want it to go through."
I am most grateful to my noble friend Lord Morton of Shuna—who has a googly which the noble Lord, Lord Beaverbrook, knows well!—and to my noble friend Lady Birk for their support in what have been long and arduous Committee, Report and, indeed, Third Reading stages. I should also like to express my thanks to all my noble friends on these Benches who have participated in the debates.
However, above all, I must say that I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Beaverbrook, who has conducted himself in a manner which is in the best traditions of your Lordships' House. He undertook the Bill. I believe that it is the first time that he has taken a large Bill through the House. He has conducted himself in an exemplary manner. He has always been courteous, kind and understanding. For the Opposition, as we are without large battalions of civil servants behind us, that means a great deal. On this Bill—if I may say so without disrespect to him—the noble Lord has made his reputation in the House.
I have also to echo what the noble Lord said about the officials in the Department of Trade and Industry, who have been unfailingly co-operative. They have supplied the noble Lord with immediate briefings—if I may put it like that—on especially difficult spin bowling so that he has been able to fend off our googlies without any problem.

741
We wish the Bill well. We believe that the Bill is better, having gone through the debates in your Lordships' House, than it was when it started. There will no doubt be amendments and further debates in another place. Nevertheless, we believe that the Bill is a good Bill in that it restates the law of copyright; it makes certain major amendments to patent law, and it makes the whole issue of intellectual property more coherent for the layman than it was before the Bill was produced. We therefore wish it well. In particular, if I may say so very personally, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Beaverbrook, for the work that he has done.
Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran: My Lords, perhaps I may briefly but nevertheless sincerely thank the Minister for his kind words about me. Perhaps I may presume to congratulate him on his courtesy, competence, good humour and tolerance at all times when dealing with the massive Bill with its 1,300-odd amendments. I also once again add my thanks to his hard-working officials who have been so helpful not only to Members of the House but to people from industry and law firms who came to consult them. I also thank those who from time to time supported some of the statements that I made in the House.
I leave with one sense of disappointment. As an honorary associate member of a trade marks institute, who was its guest of honour last week, I was asked why the Bill, which refers so frequently to trade marks, does not yet have the words "trade marks" in the Title.
The Earl of Stockton: My Lords, this has been the first major Bill in which I have taken part. I am grateful to noble Lords on all sides of the House for their help and forbearance in my efforts. As a book and magazine publisher, I may perhaps echo the words of my noble friend the Minister and say that it is now a fine Bill. To have been part of its creation has frequently been a pleasure and has always been an education.
Lord Lucas of Chilworth: My Lords, I begin with the DTI press notice of 30th October, which started by saying:
"A Bill which will provide an improved system of protection for intellectual property until well into the next century has been published today, 30th October".
I think that this is the point with which the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Elvel, finished: this has been a long and fascinating Bill. Whether it lasts, as we all hope it will, well into the next century, time alone will tell, because there are always developments.
I may perhaps be personal. I turn, if I may, with clue respect to your Lordships' House, to the Box on my left. I should like to say to the officials "Thank you very much". Undoubtedly, under the guidance of the Minister in charge, the officials have been unfailingly courteous, unfailingly helpful and diligent. They must have given up a great deal of time.
This has been a long Bill. The noble Lord, Lord Beaverbrook, the Minister in charge, and I worked together for a short while. Perhaps I personally may congratulate him for the manner in which he has conducted proceedings in your Lordships' House. That I personally have not got quite what I wanted
742
does not matter overmuch. He has listened, talked with us and come to a conclusion different from the one I reached.
The important point, as the noble Lord, Lord Williams said, is that none of us has been antagonistic. We have put forward alternative views which the Government have considered. On occasions the Government came to different conclusions. I do not think that matters. The important thing is that the department and my noble friend were open-minded. They listened and talked to us. I thank them very much.
I know full well that this Bill goes to another place in very much better shape than when it entered your Lordships' House. That is undoubtedly due to the efforts of my noble friend Lord Beaverbrook and his officials.
Lord Beaverbrook: My Lords, I should like to thank all noble Lords for their kind words and to echo all your Lordships' views in saying how much we appreciate the contribution of my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor. We appreciate seeing him here at this late hour of the night when he has so many other matters to attend to.
On Question, Bill passed and returned to the Commons with amendments.

Education (Publication and Consultation etc.) (Scotland) Amendment Regulations 1988
10.42 p.m.
Lord Morton of Shuna Lord Morton of Shuna rose to ask Her Majesty's Government what is their response to the 16th Report of the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments on the Education (Publication and Consultation etc.) (Scotland) Amendment Regulations 1988, No. 107 [HL Paper 49].
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in asking the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper, I start by bringing to the notice of the House the fact that the regulations to which the report refers were made on 26th January and came into force and were laid before Parliament on 27th January.
As your Lordships will be aware, there are statutory provisions relating to regulations of this type. They are found in the Statutory Instruments Act 1946. Section 4 says that,
"any statutory instrument is required to be laid before Parliament after being made"—
and before coming into force—
"Provided that if it is essential that any such instrument should come into operation before copies thereof can be so laid as aforesaid, the instrument may be made so as to come into operation before it has been so laid; and where any statutory instrument comes into operation before it is laid before Parliament, notification shall forthwith be sent to the Lord Chancellor and to the Speaker of the House of Commons drawing attention to the fact that copies of the instrument have yet to be laid before Parliament and explaining why such copies were not so laid before the instrument came into operation".
The unfortunate fact referred to in the report of the joint committee is that that is the situation covered by the proviso. The requirement of the proviso is first of all that the Government should show that it was essential that the provision should come into force

743
before it was laid. That they have made no attempt to do. All they can say is that it was advisable that the regulations should be known by Strathclyde Regional Council before 3rd or 12th February. There was not a word as to why it was essential that they should come into force before being laid before Parliament on 27th January.
Then there is a requirement, which I understand was not met, that a letter or a notification explaining why it was essential that it should come into operation before it was laid before Parliament should be sent to the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor and the Speaker in another place. This was just ignored. My principal provision in asking this question is to draw the attention of noble Lords to the fact that it appears that the Government are quite prepared, if they consider it necessary for political purposes, to ignore the laws as to the bringing in of regulations. Now there have been numerous occasions in various Bills where we have complained in this House—and no doubt in another place they have also complained—that there is excessive use of the power of making regulations.
If one was reasonable, one would have hoped that the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments would have some effect on the Government in seeing that they kept to the rules. The Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments has an in-built majority in favour of the Government party and always has. It always has as its chairman a Member of the Opposition party. But it always has a government majority.
The joint committee's report is very specific. But the Government just ignore its report and make no answer whatever. It appears to me that this is what the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone, was referring to prior to 1979 as a democratic dictatorship. In other words, if the Government have a majority in the House of Commons it does not matter what the rules are, they will force through whatever they happen to want.
There is no question but that the necessity for these regulations did not exist in any way at all because Strathclyde Regional Council was doing its duty in dealing with the need for schools closures. It was having a long consideration process, and some time in the middle of February it was going to start the statutory consultation process.
But because of some gentleman who has employment in Wapping who happened to have been at Paisley grammar school, and to have some kind of access to somebody in power in the Government, it was considered advisable to bring in regulations to deal with one specific school—Paisley grammar school—and to deal with it in regulations which, as the joint committee suggests, are very difficult to interpret, will encounter litigation on any interpretation of what they mean and were wholly and utterly unnecessary.
It appears to me that these regulations show a total contempt for the legislation that was passed in 1946 and has been obeyed by every Government since then. They show a total misunderstanding of what is meant by the word "essential". I would remind the noble and learned Lord opposite that we have
744
discussed that in relation to the Criminal Justice Bill. If this is the interpretation of "essential", it means something different from what the Oxford English Dictionary suggests that it might mean.
This is a deplorable example of regulations being passed against the whole spirit of what regulations are designed to meet. It is regulations being passed for one specific political purpose about one specific school without making any consideration whatever about what the effects may be on other schools in other areas. It is wholly bad. It is wholly personal. It is wholly inappropriate and I hope the noble and learned Lord when he comes to answer the point will attempt to answer it because in the debate that occurred in another place the Government apparently did not condescend to do so.
Lord Mackie of Benshie: My Lords, I shall not attempt to follow the noble Lord, Lord Morton of Shuna, in his criticism of the Government's actions and the way they have ignored custom and regulation. I think that everything that he has said is true. However, I should like the noble and learned Lord, when he comes to reply, to consider the circumstances of the case, which I think differ from the interpretation of them which has been given by the noble Lord, Lord Morton. We have caucus rule of the Labour Party in Glasgow and on the Clyde generally. Once something is decided inside the caucus, no amount of consultation will reverse the decision. That has been a feature of Labour rule all over Scotland. It is a feature which my party has long criticised.
It is also true that the words "grammar school" are anathema to the Labour Party in Scotland. One of the better Labour parties destroyed Aberdeen grammar school many years ago; it even changed the name after 500 years. There is also no question that the ethos of a school has a great deal to do with its value to the community. There is no question that local feeling was wholly in favour of the retention of the school which has been mentioned. However, it was unable to find expression in the light of the caucus rule to which I have referred. On that matter, I criticise the Labour Party wholly and completely and admit that an injustice was going to be done.
On the other hand, the Government have taken the wrong road. Surely case after case must tell them that it is the electoral system that is wrong. I am aware that noble Lords may think that they have heard too much about proportional representation. However, case after case shows the necessity for it. For the Government to push through regulations in an irregular manner again shows that if there is proper representation in local government, that sort of thing will not happen. The system gives the Labour Party an overwhelming majority on local councils, and it uses that majority quite brutally for its own purposes. Perhaps the noble and learned Lord will comment on that matter and on the effect of the electoral system on decisions taken.
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend for having given us the opportunity to discuss the matter. I do not intend to speak for very long; I believe that he covered the main points. I should also like to dissociate myself totally

745
from the statements made by the noble Lord, Lord Mackie of Benshie. I know a great many Labour councillors who are involved in education; and they are people who have been chosen because of their great love for education. They spend a great deal of time and effort in trying to get a good education system.
It is always difficult when, because of the demographic situation, there are difficulties. I am not criticising demographers unduly, but in the past 20-odd years they have got it wrong a lot of times. It is always a difficult matter. I was a local councillor for a short period. I continued in the same area as a Member of Parliament for over 20 years. I received many complaints about school closures. This regulation is plainly about Paisley grammar school; It is not about anything else. It should be emphasised that all the discussion about the Paisley grammar school overlooks, and is being selfish in overlooking, the fact that every school has its ethos, and that, particularly when a school is going to be closed or there will be great alterations, the local people, teachers, parents and pupils are greatly offended. I know of few schools that are easily closed. If I have any criticism of Strathclyde it is that it should have started a little earlier in announcing some of its closures. However, it has great problems in terms of local attitudes to school closures and in balancing the desires of the parents and balancing the types of schools. It has problems in regard to the stock and property of the schools. Whatever assets Paisley grammar school may have, they are certainly not the buildings. The buildings would certainly not in other circumstances meet with the approval of the parents.
Before the Education Act 1981 (on which this order is based) the Secretary of State had the power to intervene in all school closures. He had to give approval. Under previous Secretaries of State—the two I knew best were my noble friend Lord Ross of Marnock and Mr. Bruce Millan—there was intervention only to the extent of asking whether the parents, the pupils and the staff had been thoroughly consulted. They did not feel that they should interfere further.
Nevertheless, under the 1981 Act the Government took this power away from the Secretary of State and gave it only to the local authorities on the basis that the Secretary of State had no right to interfere with a local matter. It was considered to be a local job for the local authority to do. That view was expressed by the Minister at the time, the honourable Member for Eastwood, who is now most vociferous in trying to support the continuation of Paisley grammar school.
When the Bill was going through the House, the Opposition at the time, of which I was a member, said that if the Secretary of State were to yield up his power to the local authorities—a proposal of which we did not disapprove although we thought it unnecessary because of the way previous Secretaries of State had handled the matter—the decision should be across the board. The Government said no, and maintained the right of the Roman Catholic hierarchy alone to interfere when a school was about to be closed. There were many historic reasons for that. I do not blame the hierarchy
746
for its worries about it. However, my point is that in 1981 the Government had the opportunity to continue this system but they specifically said that it was a matter for the local authority except in the case of denominational schools where the hierarchy should have some say.
The Government had plenty of opportunity at that time to intervene but they decided that it was a local matter and continued in that way. Then we come to Paisley grammar school. With totally undue haste and cynicism they introduced this order which was dealt with so well by my noble friend Lord Morton of Shuna. In bringing in the regulations the Scottish Office should have notified Mr. Speaker and the Lord Chancellor of its reasons for doing so. It failed to do that and therefore was in breach of the Statutory Instruments Act 1946.
I hope that the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate will be able to deal with that point. It was not dealt with adequately by the Minister, who is the guru behind this measure. I refer to the honourable Member for Stirling, who seems to have taken on the mantle of Adam Smith. From my small understanding of Adam Smith, the honourable Member has been selective about the matter. The explanation given by the Minister in another place was very inadequate.
I should like to finish by referring again to the quite unprecedented action of the Prime Minister in putting pen to paper and writing personally to the headmaster of a single school—one school out of thousands in Scotland. There are also the very important questions with which my noble friend dealt concerning the 80 per cent. capacity or use of the school, who decides the matter and how it is worked out. Will there be litigation and if so, will there possibly be litigation in other cases—because there were one or two that were on the borderline? The definition of what is 80 per cent. capacity or use of the school is something that is left very vague.
My noble friend spoke about the man from Wapping and he was referring to the editor of the Sunday Times, who is an old boy of Paisley grammar school. He has made clear that he had an influence on the Prime Minister which directly or indirectly resulted in her letter to the headmaster. As I say, that is an unprecedented act by a Prime Minister. Whether he would still claim that the influence was direct or indirect, I do not know. He may not know now and he may have had second thoughts about it, but some day memoirs will be written and the background to this squalid little story will be told in full.
I do not think it will do any good at all for politics, for either House of Parliament or for the institution of democracy. I believe that it will provide ammunition for those who in the future will use such stories to denigrate the whole structure of politics in this country. The only way in which such a thing can be described, and I am sure that in the future it will be so described, is as a totally squalid little act by a government which is trying to preserve something—falsely I believe—in Paisley.
The Lord Advocate (Lord Cameron of Lochbroom): My Lords, the noble Lord opposite introduced this Question with a series of remarks which I am bound

747
to say would have been met in any court of law by a plea to relevancy, because except in one point his remarks bore not at all upon the Question that he put down.
There has been a great deal said tonight about the circumstances in which the regulations came to be made. These have been a matter of debate both in this House and in another place. Certainly it does not and did not fall within the 16th report of the joint committee. I think it is only right for me to say that I do not propose to deal further with these matters. They have nothing to do with the Question which was put down to be answered tonight.
However, I shall make quite clear that, contrary to the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Morton of Shuna, the statute gives power to my right honourable friend the Secretary of State to make these regulations. Having taken his decision to make the regulations as he was empowered to do, my right honourable friend judged that it would be essential in everybody's interests that they should come into force immediately. As the noble Lord, Lord Morton of Shuna, said, the regulations were made on 26th January. Meetings of the Strathclyde Education Committee were scheduled for the 3rd and 12th February, and the latter meeting was a special meeting at which the review group's proposals were to be considered.
If the Secretary of State had laid the regulations when he did and provided that they should come into force 21 days later, the education committee would have held its meetings knowing that these regulations had been made but had not yet come into force. However, so that there should be no question whatever of retrospective use of powers, and so that the regional council should not be in any doubt at all that the regulations would bear upon any decisions taken at such meetings, it was provided that the regulations exceptionally should come into force at the very earliest possible date.
The noble Lord has not referred to the 1981 Act, but particular regard was had to the provisions of Section 22A of that Act, which deals with the case when an education authority makes a proposal, and provides for publication and consultation. It was clearly proper that those making representations, as well as the authority itself, should be in no doubt that certain proposals, if made, were the subject of reference to the Secretary of State upon criteria that were set out in the regulations. There could thus be no grounds for suggesting that the Government had changed the rules in the middle of statutory consultation.
The Government thought that they had made it plain to the joint committee in the department's second memorandum to the committee, in which it was stated:
"It was also considered desirable that the instrument should come into force before the Council so decided, so as to avoid any suggestion that, by applying to proposals already made, the instrument had retrospective effect".
The joint committee has apparently not complained of the decision to set aside the 21-day convention but has concentrated on a more limited criticism; namely, that the regulations came into
748
operation before they were laid before Parliament. I suppose that is technically true. The regulations were laid before Parliament and came into operation on the same day. What the joint committee has complained of is that whereas the regulations therefore came into operation at midnight they were not laid until 4 p.m., some 16 hours later.
The report acknowledges tacitly that the procedure required for this circumstance in Section 4 of the Statutory Instruments Act 1946 was followed, in that the Speaker and the Lord Chancellor were notified by letter that the regulations had come into operation ahead of being laid. Therefore the noble Lord, Lord Morton of Shuna, is incorrect in saying that this was ignored. Accordingly, the Government do not accept that there has been a failure to comply with the 1946 Act.
The joint committee has noted in its opinion that the reasons contained in the notification were not adequate and did not show why it was essential to bring the regulations into operation so quickly. As I have already explained, my right honourable friend considered it essential that the regulations be brought into force as soon as possible after they were made in order that the legal ground on which the education committee might be taking its decisions should be immediately established.
Another point was raised by the noble Lord, Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove, in relation to the meaning of one part of the regulations. Again, I accept that is a criticism that is made by the joint committee in that the regulations, as it says, do not make it clear who or what authority is to be responsible for decision on the capacity of a school and for ensuring that the criteria mentioned are taken into account for the purpose of deciding when a closure decision must be referred to the Secretary of State.
The terms of Section 22B of the Education (Scotland) Act 1980 and the context of Schedule 2 to the principal regulations make it perfectly clear that the duty rests with the education authorities to decide which proposals to put before the Secretary of State for his consent. Section 22B requires an education authority to submit for consent any of its proposals of a kind prescribed for the purpose by the Secretary of State.
For instance, the existing regulations prescribing proposals which require the consent of the Secretary of State do not deem it necessary to state who is to decide whether or not a school is five or ten miles distant. It may appear on the face of it to be an objective measure not open to dispute, but as a matter of fact and practical experience in measuring distances between school an education authority has to make a judgment as to what is a reasonable route in all the circumstances. In the same way, and in the same context, in relation to a pupil travelling a distance of five or ten miles or more measured by the nearest available route, it is again a subjective measure.
It has been suggested that the criteria in the regulations to determine the capacity of a school are not clear. We believe that the criteria are quite clear enough to enable an education authority to make a reasonable judgment. Obviously, absolute and

749
objective precision in measuring a school's capacity is impossible. The actual capacity of a school will depend on such matters as the structure of the curriculum, the teaching methods employed, and any upper limits in the class sizes which were agreed in the teachers' condition of service. The fact that there is no unchanging, objective yardstick for measuring capacity does not mean that no measurement can be made. That would be absurd. Education authorities can and do make reasonable judgments of school capacity. It is on these reasonable judgments that the operation of these regulations depends.
Take the first criterion. That means that the education authority must make reasonable assessment of capacity.
A reasonable education authority will call for a report from its professional advisers, the director of education and his staff, on a matter of this kind. Any director of education can give an assessment of the working capacity of a given school. He will take into account the extent and condition of the buildings, the range of subjects offered in the curriculum, the maximum sizes of classes and so forth and on that basis he can advise the education committee on how many pupils the school can take. Indeed I am advised that the Strathclyde region had published figures for all schools before these regulations were laid showing that in at least on case one school was more than 100 per cent. full, so the calculation can be made. I am advised in passing that the school was Paisley grammar school.
In these regulations my right honourable friend the Secretary of State quite clearly made known his view that education authorities should simply not have the last word over the future of a school which is able to operate at or near full capacity. He has done so by bringing these regulations into effect in time so that the Strathclyde Education Committee could take and were bound to take any decision in the fullest knowledge of them. That is proper notice properly given. It was essential that it be so.
I therefore make clear that in this case the circumstances to which the joint committee has drawn attention are not, in the Government's view, well founded. In the Government's view the requirements of Section 4 of the 1946 Act were fully met and in particular the proviso was met.
Lord Morton of Shuna: My Lords, before the noble and learned Lord sits down, perhaps he could answer this question which he does not appear to have answered at all. Why was it essential in the terms of Section 4 of the 1946 Act that this order came into force on 27th January and not on 2nd February? That is one question which has not been answered. There has been a misconception about the 21-day rule, but the basic issue, according to Section 4 of the Act, is that the order comes into force before it is laid before Parliament. Secondly, why were the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor and the Speaker of the House not informed of the reasons why it was thought to be essential? Those are the points that I have tried to raise and those are the points that the noble and learned Lord has not, I regret, answered.
Lord Cameron of Lochbroom: My Lords, I take it that I had not sat down. I have made the matter perfectly plain and I can go no further than that.
Lord Mackie of Benshie: My Lords, before the noble and learned Lord sits down again, I wonder whether he will tell me in plain language whether the decision, the real reason for laying the regulations, was simply that his right honourable friend the Secretary of State disagreed with the decision he thought the authority was going to take? In other words, he simply did not trust the local authority?
Lord Cameron of Lochbroom: My Lords, in effect, with leave of the House, I wish to make it clear that I am answering the Question as put down this evening. I have made quite clear that these were matters debated on an earlier occasion.
House adjourned at a quarter past eleven o'clock.

  BUILDING INDUSTRY: POLITICAL CONTRIBUTIONS
  BUILDING INDUSTRY: POLITICAL CONTRIBUTIONS
  GREENLAND WHITEFRONTED GEESE
  GREENLAND WHITEFRONTED GEESE
  ABERDEEN UNIVERSITY
  ABERDEEN UNIVERSITY
  MEXICAN "BLACK TAR" HEROIN
  MEXICAN "BLACK TAR" HEROIN
  HEROIN AND COCAINE: PURITY ANALYSIS
  HEROIN AND COCAINE: PURITY ANALYSIS
  MURDER CONVICTIONS: "CAPITAL" CLASSIFICATION
  MURDER CONVICTIONS: "CAPITAL" CLASSIFICATION
  MURDER CONVICTIONS: STATISTICS
  MURDER CONVICTIONS: STATISTICS
  DRUGS AND APPLIANCES: EC DIRECTIVE REQUIREMENTS
  DRUGS AND APPLIANCES: EC DIRECTIVE REQUIREMENTS
  WORCESTER HEALTH DISTRICT: ORTHOPAEDIC SURGERY
  WORCESTER HEALTH DISTRICT: ORTHOPAEDIC SURGERY
  AIDS AND DRUGS MISUSE: ACMD REPORT
  AIDS AND DRUGS MISUSE: ACMD REPORT
  INTERCEPTION OF COMMUNICATIONS: COMMISSIONER'S REPORT
  INTERCEPTION OF COMMUNICATIONS: COMMISSIONER'S REPORT