Sitting of 9 February 1990

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

    Roding Valley
    9.34 am
    Mr. Paul Channon: On behalf of my hon. Friend the Member for Brentwood and Ongar (Mr. McCrindle) who, as the House knows, has been ill, and whom we all hope and expect to be back in the House very soon indeed, I beg leave to present a petition from the members of the Roding Valley conservation group signed by several hundred people whose lives and work are severely affected by the proposal of the Amey Roadstone Corporation in the green belt near Chipping Ongar in Essex to extend its clay extraction, clay processing and landfill operations. The proposals would cause severe damage to local people and to the environment until the year 2039 and possibly beyond and they are opposed by local people, three parish councils, two district councils and the county council.
    "Wherefore your Petitioners pray that your honourable House will urge the Secretary of State for the Environment to refuse planning permission for ARC's proposals and thus prevent that company from destroying part of the irreplaceable Roding Valley.
    And your Petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray".
    To lie upon the Table.

    Student Loans
    Sir Russell Johnston: I beg leave to present a petition on behalf of, and collected by, the Inverness college students association. The petition demonstrates widespread concern in my constituency and in other parts of the Highlands about the introduction of student loans. The loans are felt to create a significant disincentive to groups whom we should be encouraging to enter higher education. There is also an awareness, not apparently shared by the Government, of the particular problem of four-year courses in Scotland:
    "Wherefore your Petitioners pray that your honourable House do reject the proposals for the payment by students of tuition fees or student loans; furthermore, that access to further and higher education be improved and not be inhibited by inability to pay.
    And your Petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray".
    To lie upon the Table.

  Orders of the Day

    Computer Misuse Bill
    Order for Second Reading read.
    9.36 am
    Mr. Michael Colvin: I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
    As the title of the Bill suggests, it deals with certain forms of computer misuse. Perhaps I had better begin by explaining what I mean by computer misuse.
    There are three main categories of computer misuse. The first is unauthorised access to computers and computer systems. The second is unauthorised access with further ulterior intent, such as fraud, and, finally, there is unauthorised modification, which is the computer equivalent of criminal damage.
    The Bill would make those three forms of computer misuse criminal offences. The underlying principle is to safeguard the integrity—what I call the trustworthiness—of computers and not to protect the information that computers contain. I do not want the House to be under any misconception about that.
    Computer misuse probably costs the United Kingdom between £400 million—the CBI's figure—and perhaps as much as £2 billion a year, in terms of damage to systems. Those figures are based on estimates from industry sources, users of systems and manufacturers of computer hardware and software. I am afraid that there are no reliable statistics, because there is no central recording of incidents. Unfortunately the perception is that there is a very low probability of successfully prosecuting computer misuse under present law. That leads to organisations being reluctant to admit unauthorised access because they see that as a bit of an embarrassment.
    It is significant, for example, that of 270 cases that have been verified by the Department of Trade and Industry as involving computer misuse over the past five years, only six were brought to court for prosecution and only three of those were successfully prosecuted for fraud. There must be some inadequacy in the law as it stands.
    Costs from misuse arise because any unauthorised access undermines the trustworthiness of a computer. An organisation usually cannot tell precisely what has happened when access has been achieved. As a result, it must spend resources on checking and restoring computer software. When there are several computers in a system that process can be very expensive—probably costing tens of thousands of pounds. For example, I may hack—that is the jargon for unauthorised access—into a local hospital's computer. Whether or not I succeed in modifying medical records for some malicious purpose, a computer manager in the hospital, having discovered me, which he can do because I would have left electronic footprints around, must check and verify perhaps all computer records. If I succeed in modifying the system, it could be disastrous, as I am sure hon. Members will appreciate.
    Another possibility is that I will render the computer and any others connected with it in the network inoperable, and the cost of cleaning up such a network can amount to hundreds of thousands of pounds. The first conviction for such an activity has just occurred in the United States.

    1135
    That is occurring when we are in the vanguard of countries seeking to encourage greater use of information technology to create wealth and when we are doing our best to attract inward investment to the United Kingdom, with 1992 and a single Europe in mind. The United Kingdom is one of the few major western industrial countries that have no computer crime laws to deal with a serious problem. There is a real risk that, if nothing is done, the United Kingdom could become an international hackers' haven.
    Why is our law unable to deal with computer mischief? It is principally because it simply has not kept pace with the rate of progress and because computer misuse is fairly new. My "Oxford English Dictionary", which was published in 1964, does not even mention the noun "computer". The pace of technological development has been so rapid that, over three or four decades, computers have come into widespread commercial use. In one decade—the 1980s—the technological revolution has extended to the home, with the use of personal computers. Undoubtedly, in the next decade many further advances will be inevitable. In the 1980s, we witnessed a vast increase in knowledge of computers and the production of easier-to-use machines. Computers are much more user friendly. Prices have tumbled, and computer technology is now available to virtually everybody.
    Modern telecommunications enable one to connect with a computer through a modem. Some people think that a modem is an expensive and bulky piece of equipment. I have a modem in my hand. Hon. Members can see that it is rather smaller than a cigarette lighter, and not very costly either. With such a device people can connect into telephone networks. International networks are expanding quickly and are carrying many more messages since the introduction of fibre optics. Anyone with a simple home computer and a modem can access another computer if it is connected to the telephone network. That vastly increases the speed of modern communications and aids the welcome free exchange of information, but it leaves computers vulnerable to misuse.
    Security fears block the free flow of information. Scientific and social progress can take place only in the open. The paranoia that hackers leave in their wake stifles work and forces administrators to disconnect their links with network communities. Open systems need trust, but hackers destroy trust. The information technology industry has recognised that risk. Responsible vendors and service organisations have put in place comprehensive development programmes to create secure information products and services—not least Her Majesty's Government, through the work of the Central Computer Telecommunications Agency staff, to whom I spoke only yesterday. However, the fact remains that the lack of appropriate legislation in the United Kingdom provides a loophole for hackers, particularly if legitimate user systems have been outmoded by rapid technological advances. We find ourselves in the 1990s with new, well-defined mischiefs that the law does not address at all or does not address with any certainty.
    I have been asked why, as someone who is barely computer literate, although I am learning fast, I should bring forward a Bill on computer misuse. I may not know much about computers, but computers know a great deal
    1136
    about me, and that is why the Bill is of general interest. I am still counting, but, so far, I have identified 102 computer systems in Britain that contain personal information about me, and the same is probably true of all hon. Members.
    Most homes now boast a personal computer of some sort. Certainly, many people sit at computer terminals at work. Most hon. Members have invested in computers or word processors to cope with the flood of constituency mail that we receive. Unfortunately, since the fall in the price of such instruments and the growth in user friendliness, our constituents are also investing in such machines. One computer is now talking to another computer, and hon. Members sit somewhere in betweeen. There are probably as many computers in offices, factories and homes as there are cars outside.
    Just as at the beginning of the century, when the first motor cars appeared on our roads, we had to introduce special laws to govern their use and misuse, in spite of existing legislation on horse-drawn carriages, so too are special laws required today to cope with computers. The Bill would provide such laws.
    1 have closely based the Bill on the excellent and well-reasoned recommendations of the Law Commission of England and Wales in its report No. 186, which was published in October 1989. So that the Bill should apply to Scotland as well, I have drawn on an earlier Scottish Law Commission report, No. 106, which was published in 1987. I offer my thanks to Mr. Richard Buxton QC of the Law Commission of England and Wales. He is a principal member of that commission and has been closely involved in the preparation of the Bill. The Law Commission stated that an adequate deterrent would not be provided against the threat of computer misuse simply by trying to stretch or patch up existing criminal law. It took the view that society needs to say clearly that unauthorised access to any computer system is now so anti-social as to be a criminal offence.
    That view is shared by a large majority of the 100-odd organisations and individuals who made submissions to the Law Commission of England and Wales when it conducted its year-long study of the nature and extent of computer misuse, following the publication of its working green paper No. 110. Evidence came from a wide range of organisations—computer users in the public and private sectors, computer software manufacturers, hardware manufacturers, and the law enforcement agencies to many of whom I have spoken in the past five weeks, and I thank them most sincerely for their help.
    In carrying out its review, the commission was considerably helped by the report of the Scottish Law Commission. Primarily, the extra evidence that has been provided by the passage of time and the difference between the two legal systems in Scotland and England and Wales led to slightly different recommendations. Since publication of the commission's report, some well-attended public debates have shown a broad consensus of support, if some difference on specific details.
    I owe much to the parliamentary information technology committee—PITCOM—and to the efforts of my hon. Friend the Member for Torridge and Devon, West (Miss Nicholson), who I am pleased to see in her place, and who has probably forgotten more about computers than I will ever learn. But for the luck of the draw, my hon. Friend would almost certainly have been bringing forward an update of her own Bill on this matter.

    1137
    My hon. Friend has done a great deal to raise public awareness of this issue and I am delighted to have her as a sponsor of my Bill.
    To show the sort of twisted culture that the Bill is trying to stamp out, I have with me an extract from a bulletin board, which is a sort of electronic newspaper that is used by computer operators. It regards my hon. Friends enthusiasm as extremely unwelcome, stating:
    "who's seen the news in the 'Sunday Times'…page A5 about hacking…and phreaking Mercury…they also want restrictions on BBS's…it's that stupid cow …the devon MP 'computer expert'…don't make me laff…could be bad news tho…maybe someone should assassinate her?
    "Did somebody suggest that hacking is a harmless culture? All that I can say is that it is a privilege and I am honoured to join my hon. Friend on the hackers' hit list.
    Now to the Bill and the underlying policy——
    Sir Geoffrey Finsberg: I heard my hon. Friend's dulcet tones on the radio this morning, but one point about his Bill needs clarification. We all recognise the need for this action, but is he satisfied, first, that the police forces of this country have the professional ability to find out when there is a crime, and secondly—and perhaps more importantly—what about the Crown prosecution service? Will it be able to do an effective job if, as I hope, we give the Bill legislative effect?
    Mr. Colvin: I welcome that intervention. I shall be coming to those points later but, briefly, I am satisfied that the police have adequate powers at present to enforce the law, and I am sure that the Crown prosecution service will be careful about assessing evidence before it agrees to proceed with prosecutions. It is clear that what the Bill proposes by way of penalties means that it will be an adequate deterrent to put off a lot of the hacking that is now taking lace.
    Mr. James Arbuthnot: I am most grateful to my hon. Friend for giving way again. He has just been talking about bulletin boards and I have been following and agreeing with what he has said so far. Obviously, a great deal of action is necessary and the Bill is extremely good. However, I caution my hon. Friend about attacking the idea of bulletin boards because they are a bit like any other form of communication—they can be misused, but perhaps that misuse, rather than the medium through which the misuse is occurring should be controlled. Does my hon. Friend agree that attacking bulletin boards as such is a bit like attacking books?
    Mr. Colvin: That would be an extremely dangerous thing to do. The whole essence of my Bill is that I am improving freedom of information, which is fundamental to this country. A bulletin board is like a newspaper, but if I persuaded somebody through a newspaper to commit an offence, I would be guilty of incitement. Bulletin boards must be extremely careful about what they say. My hon. Friend's point is extremely valid.
    The Bill has two main elements. Clauses 1 to 5 make provision for the new offences. Clauses 6 to 11 introduce new rules governing the jurisdiction of the courts to try cases. Clauses 12 to 19 are consequential provisions, making technical amendments to the body of criminal law or amplifying the offences themselves.
    I shall concentrate first on the main elements—the offences. Clause 1 creates a new offence triable summarily—that is, in a magistrates court—of unauthorised access
    1138
    to programs and data held in computers. The maximum penalty is six months in gaol or a £2,000 fine, which is the maximum that a magistrates court can hand out. The objective is to deter deliberate, unauthorised access or attempts to gain access, which is usually referred to as hacking. It is also aimed at insiders who try to get into parts of a system where they know that they should not be. "Intent" is the key element. It would be wrong to seek to catch the person who secures access simply because he or she is inattentive, incompetent, careless or not properly informed about the limits of his or her authority. It puts the onus on employers to ensure that, within contracts of employment or other instructions, employees are left in absolutely no doubt about what they are entitled to do. If they have authority, this law would in no way attempt to penalise them.
    Clause 2 creates an offence, triable either summarily or on indictment, of unauthorised access with the intent to commit or to facilitate the commission of a more serious further offence, such as fraud or blackmail. The offence provides substantially greater penalties to deal with those who have distinctly criminal intentions. The maximum penalty would be five years in gaol and, of course, the fines would be unlimited. It is what lawyers call a preliminary offence, because it bites before the further offence is committed or attempted. If I use a computer to get information with which to blackmail someone, I have committed a clause 2 offence even before I have sent the blackmail note.
    Clause 3 is the corresponding clause for Scotland. The formulation that is proposed for the rest of the United Kingdom would not work in Scotland because of the differences in the Scottish legal system. The formula that I have adopted is similar to that suggested by the Scottish Law Commission in its report on computer crime, to which I have already referred.
    Clause 4 creates an offence, triable summarily or on indictment, to deal with the unauthorised modification of data or programs held in computers or computer storage media. The intention is to remove the current uncertainty that exists in the law concerning damage to intangible property, such as data. It is not intended to cover physical damage to a computer or to disks which would remain within the ambit of the criminal damage laws. It is intended to cover forms of conduct such as erasure, or the putting into circulation of disks that are infected with a computer code—the jargon is "virus"—that is designed to impair the performance of the computer. It is much like the, flu virus that replicates itself in the body and slows one down. Incidentally, it takes a real expert about two hours to write the software for a virus but, on average, about 350 hours to check out a system that is infected and to correct the damage that might have been caused.
    There seems to be a whole zoo of malicious software. Since I have been investigating the matter, I have met Trojan horses, logic bombs, viruses, worms, bacteria and even rabbits. I am not sure that I can always tell one from another, but I know that they are all pretty nasty.
    Hon. Members may have heard something about this little devil I have here. It is a diskette. The note accompanying it stated that it is an "AIDS introductory diskette". It was mailed to over 20,000 personal computer users in December last year. Those who loaded it into their machines found that it was extremely malicious in that it instructed them to sent money to a Post Office box in Panama or else the program contained on the diskette

    1139
    would impair the computer's memory after 90 accesses. Many organisations were affected. This one was posted to Kenya from London W1.
    Dr. Lewis Popp was arrested last Saturday in Ohio for circulating the disks. He was charged with extorting money with menaces. If he did it, I hope that the police can make the charge stick. If they cannot, the accused will probably get away scot free because circulation of an infected disk, such as this, is not an offence. However, the Bill will make it one.
    The prospect of new offences has stimulated considerable debate and interest and a number of views have been expressed about it, most of them in favour. However, there are some dissenters on specific issues and it might help the House if I were to comment on some of the reservations that have been expressed.
    It has been argued that the basis of the offences should not be the safeguarding of the computer's trustworthiness, as I propose, but the protection of information, perhaps by conferring a property right on information. That has certain intellectual attraction but the Law Commission rejected that approach. Property rights to information raise complex issues about freedom of information, privacy, confidentiality and how information is valued—which have not been considered in depth. I suspect that it will take a long time to study them properly and to reach a consensus.
    We are living in what people call the information society, so it is necessary to consider such issues for the future. We should not let present mischiefs go unchecked for 10 years while we debate freedom of information, privacy and confidentiality.
    When pondering issues such as this it is natural to consider whether there is another more suitable and simpler remedy. The Law Commission concluded that there was not. It considered whether users could prevent unauthorised access or modification simply by taking security precautions. In much the same way as we lock our doors to deter burglars, it is possible to protect computers, and many people do.
    There is now among users a far greater appreciation of the threat to computer systems and the need to take proper precautions. My research on the Bill certainly proved that. However, there is no complete form of protection for computers. High levels of security can be achieved but they are horrifically expensive, in terms of money, inconvenience or both. Security systems tend to slow up the computer. When speed is the essence, that can be extremely costly. We do not expect householders to turn their homes into Fort Knox. We expect them to take sensible precautions and we add to that the support of sound laws against burglary. That is precisely my approach in the Bill.
    Computer owners do not have a statutory duty to protect their computer systems. When I discussed this aspect of the Bill with the Data Protection Registrar, Mr. Eric Howe, he pointed out that the Data Protection Act 1984 requires computer users who process information about individuals to follow certain good practices. These are laid down in the data protection principles. One of those principles is:
    1140
    "appropriate security measures shall be taken against unauthorised access to, or alteration, disclosure or destruction of, personal data and against accidental loss or destruction of personal data."
    I do not accept the argument that, once misuse is made a crime, computer users will pay less attention to their security arrangements.
    The House will agree that good security requires constant vigilance and that computer users should be aware that their responsibilities under the Data Protection Act will not be diminished simply because they have legal protection against hacking. I stress to users that I do not see legislation as an alternative to computer security but as a complementary protection.
    The response among users has been encouraging and there is clear recognition that legislation does not obviate the need for proper security. It would be wrong to think that all is well and that everyone is acting properly. Not everyone is acting properly. I know that the Government have launched an awareness campaign to do something about that and I look forward to hearing what my hon. Friend the Minister for Industry has to say when he replies to the debate.
    The creation of any new offence invites comment on enforcement. My hon. Friend the Member for Hampstead and Highgate (Sir G. Finsberg) has already intervened on that point. This Bill is no exception. I spoke to the police and others, when formulating the provisions on enforcement. I am satisfied that the powers and expertise necessary to enforce the offences are available. I have no doubt that it would be possible to extend the powers currently available to gather and present evidence. I know that the House takes police powers seriously, but we should not change them without a convincing case.
    I propose no provisions to reform the law on evidence. Under the current law, computer records would, in principle, be admissible. There is no firm evidence that the law is deficient and no consensus about how it should be changed if deficiencies were found. If, following enactment of the Bill, it were thought that the law in respect of evidence needed to be changed, that should be referred back to the Law Commission for further consideration.
    The Law Commission recommended against reform of the existing law on evidence and I am prepared to accept its advice. If any hon. Member is still not satisfied on that and if we achieve a Second Reading, we could discuss the matters in depth in Committee. I am not yet convinced that the Bill needs to say anything on evidence.
    People have expressed anxiety about the Bill because many of the people with the skills to commit the offences are juveniles under the law. I have been asked how my Bill will apply to them. My answer is that it will apply in exactly the same way as the general criminal law. The law lays down rules for the treatment of offenders between the ages of 10 and 20. The law would affect them in the same way, but the manner of trial and the penalties available are different. Nevertheless, I hope that the Bill will be as great a deterrent to them as to everyone else.
    The Bill does not aim to cover electronic eavesdropping which is the remote monitoring of electromagnetic emissions from computer equipment. But certain forms of eavesdropping could fall within the meaning of access, as described in clause 18. There is insufficient evidence that eavesdropping is a serious mischief. If I included it in the Bill it would raise wider sensitive issues, outside the scope of the Bill.

    1141
    Clauses 6 and 7 and 8 to 11 are closely related and cover jurisdiction. Here again, I am indebted to the Law Commission. Its computer misuse report set out the rules that should operate in offences where cross-border activity is a significant feature. Its detailed recommendations are spelt out in "Jurisdiction Over Offences of Fraud and Dishonesty With a Foreign Element"—Law Commission report 180, which was published in April 1989.
    Currently the rules provide that United Kingdom courts have jurisdiction only if the offence is regarded as taking place in the United Kingdom. That implies that the last act or event necessary to complete the offence took place here. Those rules are unnecessarily restrictive and are inadequate to deal with computer misuse committed across national boundaries, as happens more and more today. it is intended to make it possible to prosecute for the computer misuse offences if the accused or any affected computer was in the United Kingdom at the relevant time. In doing that, the Bill is trail-blazing. It will be the first piece of legislation to which these new elements on jurisdiction have been added.
    I also intend to make parallel changes to the rules on the associated offences of conspiracy, attempt and incitement. I confess that those apparently straightforward provisions appealed to me greatly, so I was staggered when I saw the statutory provisions—the words in the Bill—that are needed to make them work. No doubt hon. Members who turn to the relevant pages in the Bill will be puzzled, too. I am reassured that the complexity of the provisions is necessary to keep the jurisdictional reach within acceptable bounds and to ensure that the provisions will make sense when read with the existing body of law.
    The House will know that I am no lawyer, but my advice comes from impeccable sources and I ask the House for its trust on this matter. The detail can be examined in Committee. For the most part this is a Bill which even I can understand on a quick read. The House is indebted to the draftsperson. She has done a remarkable job. Although it is conventional not to mention names, the House should commend her on the way in which the Bill has been drafted. With private Members' legislation it is vital that the drafting is good. Hon. Members will appreciate that the time wasted on redrafting such a Bill can have a serious effect, especially as time is of the essence to get it onto the statute book.
    Clause 12 contains "savings" for law enforcement powers under the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984, the Finance Acts 1985 and 1988, the Wireless Telegraphy Act 1949 and common law enforcement powers in Scotland. It preserves the authorities' existing powers to access computer records and to enter premises and access computers to obtain data in exercise of their investigatory powers without, committing the offence of unauthorised access which is provided for in clause 1.
    Clause 13 provides that proceedings must be brought within six months from the date when the prosecutor decided that a prosecution was justified and not later than three years after the offence was allegedly committed. Clause 14 provides for the courts to convict a person of a clause 1 offence, the basic offence of unauthorised access—the long-stop offence—ven though the court might have acquitted the person of clause 2 or clause 4 offences. Equivalent provisions for Scotland in this respect are set out in clause 15. Clause 16 covers extradition and clause 17
    1142
    contains certain provisions needed to give proper effect to the Bill in Northern Ireland. Clause 18 covers interpretation.
    This is a well-thought-out and well-defined Bill. It deals with specific mischiefs that I have no doubt are serious enough to merit the attention of the criminal law. I hope that the debate will dispel] any lingering belief that the computer hacker is some sort of Raffles of the microchip, a harmless irritant whose principal damage is to his own telephone bill. It is impossible to draw the line between a mischief-maker and the dangerous nuisance or professional criminal.
    It is time for Parliament to say that hacking is always serious, even if the intention is mere mischief. I believe that it is time to give the Bill a Second Reading.
    10.11 am
    Mr. Norman Hogg: I find myself in a rather strange position. I used to attend the House every Friday morning when I was the Opposition's deputy Chief Whip. When I was finally paroled from the Whips' Office I said to myself that I would attend the House on every Friday to speak on everything as it offers a wonderful opportunity for hon. Members to do so. The packed Opposition Benches clearly demonstrate that this morning. Everyone will be relieved to learn that I have not spoken every Friday, and that I have reserved myself for this occasion.
    I congratulate the hon. Member for Romsey and Waterside (Mr. Colvin). He described himself as being computer illiterate, but he did not come over as such. He made a most competent and authoritative speech which demonstrated that he is thoroughly conversant with every provision of the Bill.
    The hon. Gentleman is also to be congratulated on managing to draw a place in the ballot for private Members' Bills. We know that Government Departments are not happy with the private Members' Bill procedure because they always wonder what will happen and Ministers do not know what may be in store for them. On the basis of experience, I believe that such Bills must be short, well focused and clear in their objectives. This Bill fulfils those criteria.
    I also congratulate the hon. Gentleman on his broadcast this morning on the "Today" programme on Radio 4. He argued his case concisely against a well-informed and well-organised opposition. That programme has a massive national audience and it was important for the Bill's case to be made on it. The hon. Gentleman succeeded in making that case, and I believe that the Bill will be well received.
    So often a specific industry or interested parties seek to knock the proposals in a private Members' Bill and to suggest that it does not represent good legislation. They argue that the Government alone should introduce such legislation. The Bill, however, is well drafted—I do not believe that anyone who has read it would disagree—and I do not expect that it will detain us long in Committee.
    Mr. Colvin: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that there are some advantages in this subject being dealt with in a private Member's Bill? We are attempting to maintain the precarious balance between introducing a new criminal law and police powers. If the Government had introduced

    1143
    such a Bill, it might have been heavier and, therefore, might have provoked a certain amount of opposition. As it is, the Bill has all-party support, which is welcome.
    Mr. Hogg: I am aware of that and it is welcome. If its sponsors propose to be members of the Committee, it will be a useful Committee and I am sure that there will be a great deal of interest in it. When the Minister replies, I hope that he will welcome the Bill and that he will say that there is no need for extensive alterations to it.
    The case for such legislation was first identified in Scotland. It is amazing what comes out of Scotland. I can say with conviction that it is a country where the question of law and the making of law is tackled cautiously. We are properly jealous of what we do with our law. Part of the agreement which led to the Union was that Scottish law would be maintained. I am no lawyer, but the basis of law in Scotland is different from that in England and Wales.
    Mr. Colvin: I cannot resist intervening because, as I am three quarters Scottish, I agree entirely with what my hon. Friend has said. It may interest him to know that in a reckless moment I thought of introducing a simple one-clause Bill that would bring all the laws of England and Wales into line with those of Scotland.
    Mr. Hogg: The case for the Bill gets stronger and stronger. [Interruption.] The Minister intervenes from a sedentary position and, as a member of the Chairmen's Panel, I must say that that is most improper.
    In 1984 the Scottish Law Commission made a report on what changes should be made to the law in this respect. The report was published in 1987, and I am pleased that the hon. Member for Romsey and Waterside saw fit to have regard to the needs of the law in Scotland.
    The Bill is wanted by industry, and we have been well briefed by the Confederation of British Industry. I do not always agree with the CBI and I do not know what my hon. Friend the Member for Kirkcaldy (Dr. Moonie) will say, but the briefing paper from the CBI makes it clear that it wants the Bill. I also believe that the computer industry will welcome the Bill because it cannot build into its technology the necessary safeguards to prevent hacking or other offences. At the moment such safeguards are technically impossible and, therefore, the law must fill the gap. That is important. The hon. Gentleman was right when he said that companies throughout the country have branches that are linked by computer. A few years ago the only tool to link them was the telephone, but now computers and information technology provide that communication.
    Only a week ago I visited two companies in my constituency, both owned by British Oxygen—Transhield and Storeshield. They control the stock for Marks and Spencer. All Marks and Spencer's goods, as far north as Inverness, as far south as Warrington and west to Belfast in Northern Ireland, come from my constituency where a massive stock is held. Each day, and almost every hour, trucks leave the company for all the Marks and Spencer stores in the huge area of the United Kingdom. The stock control—filling the trucks and despatching goods—is done by computer.
    I do not believe that Marks and Spencer's computers would be broken into or that its competitors would seek to do that—of course not. However, other companies that
    1144
    control their organisations by computer might be vulnerable to the kind of offence that this measure seeks to regulate. Therefore, the measure is worthwhile.
    Miss Emma Nicholson: The hon. Gentleman may already know, or may like to know, that I have just received an answer from Marks and Spencer to a survey that I carried out last year. I have a letter dated 18 January 1990 from Mr. Andrew Steet, the manager for finance and computer auditor, who must be known to the hon. Gentleman. In it, he says that he supports the measure and is happy to be included in any further debates and surveys although, quite properly, as the hon. Gentleman said, Mr. Steet has stated that, to the best of his knowledge, Marks and Spencer has not been affected by computer viruses or hacking. However, the company sees the dangers and warmly commends the measure.
    Mr. Hogg: I am grateful to the hon. Lady, whose point serves to underline my own. I did not know that Marks and Spencer had expressed a view about the matter. Clearly what it says underlines the fact that it could face unfair competition due to the use of unlawful means. The Bill will get round that problem.
    The hon. Member for Hampstead and Highgate (Sir G. Finsberg) referred to policing. I shall certainly want to know about that in Committee. I thought that the hon. Member for Romsey and Waterside dealt with that, but perhaps we can go into it in greater detail later.
    The Bill is a good example of a private Member's Bill and it will reach the statute book, which must please the hon. Member for Romsey and Waterside. We shall have brought the law to a sector where it does not presently exist. It will do a great deal of good, and I am sure that the House will support it.
    10.24 am
    Mr. William Powell: It is always a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Cumbernauld and Kilsyth (Mr. Hogg) and, on this occasion, reflect on his proud statement about the wonderful things that come out of Scotland. As a Member of Parliament who represents at least as many Scots as most Scottish Members, I heartily concur with his statement that wonderful things and people come out of Scotland, including my hon. Friend the Member for Romsey and Waterside (Mr. Colvin).
    I congratulate my hon. Friend on his immense good fortune in securing a leading position in the ballot for private Members' legislation and having the good sense to take up this Bill. It has been made perfectly plain to the House today that this is a necessary measure, and I congratulate my hon. Friend on sponsoring it.
    I should like to join in the warm tribute that he paid my hon. Friend the Member for Torridge and Devon, West (Miss Nicholson), who has played a most distinguished part in preparing public and parliamentary opinion for the necessary change in the law that we are considering. Without the slightest doubt, without her active and committed sponsorship, those changes could have been delayed for quite a long time, with immense potential damage to the industry and public.
    I declare two interests. First, in my misspent youth I was a practising member of the Bar and spent much time dealing with criminal work. The Bill involves the extension of the criminal law into subjects that are imperfectly

    1145
    covered at present. My interest is indirect because, alas, I no longer practise. However, I hope that at least some of my erstwhile friends will enlarge their knowledge of human behaviour as a result of the Bill.
    Secondly, I am vice chairman of the Federation against Software Theft, commonly known as FAST. The House may recall that five years ago I sponsored a change in the copyright law in the Copyright (Computer Software) Amendment Act 1985, which cleared up uncertainties and difficulties for the software industry. Since the passage of that Act, I have remained actively interested in the subject and more recently have been involved in trying to eradicate breaches of the Act and the criminal law by pirates in the software industry. I have a large range of contacts in the industry, and all of them have been immensely impressed not only by the way in which my hon. Friend the Member for Romsey and Waterside has taken up the case, but by the rapid way in which he has mastered what can be a most difficult subject. Through its vocabulary and scientific mechanisms, it is almost designed to deter those of us who had a rather more primitive education than that currently available to our children.
    I introduce a slightly critical note. I was disappointed, as were so many in the industry, that the Government did not decide to introduce this as a Government Bill. Private Members' legislation has certain advantages, but it has one massive disadvantage: it is the subject of arbitrary processes. It was perfectly plain from the Law Commission and the consultation processes both in Scotland and England that there was a problem that needed to be urgently addressed. My hon. Friend the Member for Torridge and Devon, West addressed the problem when she first brought the subject before the House and has pursued her campaign to change the law in a most determined way. I know that she would have wished to introduce the Bill if she had had the good fortune in the ballot that my hon. Friend the Member for Romsey and Waterside has had. He knows that if I had had the immense good fortune to come top in the ballot I would have sought to introduce the Bill, as would other hon. Friends and even the hon. Member for Cumbernauld and Kilsyth (Mr. Hogg).
    However, there was always a real chance that the hon. Members who emerged at the top of the ballot might have had other priorities and this measure might have missed the legislative process in this Session and, who knows, in the next Session as well. The best way to deal with openings in the criminal law that emerge as a result of scientific and technological development is for the Government to take the initiative when it becomes plain that that mischief must be quickly eradicated.
    Mr. Colvin: My hon. Friend has raised a valid point which I touched on in an earlier intervention. When the Law Commission makes a report it usually attaches to it a draft Bill. In this case the Law Commission report was produced in October and there was no time to attach a draft Bill to it, although to some extent that illustrates the degree of urgency in producing the report. As the House knows, by that time the Government have usually agreed the contents of the Queen's Speech. There is a limit to the amount of legislation which even this Government can force through the House. The extension of the criminal law
    1146
    requires careful thought. Because it is a private Member's measure, the legislation cannot go too far, and that is always the danger.
    With respect to my hon. Friend the Member for Torridge and Devon, West (Miss Nicholson), her measure may have gone further than mine, and had she succeeded in getting her earlier measure debated on the Floor of the House it might have been resisted by certain elements within the House. My hon. Friend has raised a valid point, and if the Minister of State catches your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker, he will probably explain why it was not a Government measure.
    Mr. Powell: I am immensely grateful to my hon. Friend for that explanation which may have helped to show people outside why the Government did not include this among the measures outlined in the Queen's Speech as part of their legislative programme for this Session. I propose to leave that point, save to say to my hon. Friend the Minister of State that no one is a more welcome companion than a sinner who has repented. I know that, whatever may be the explanation why it was not in the Government's legislative programme, we can now expect from him the most robust and enthusiastic support for the Bill as it progresses through Parliament.
    The main burden of my speech concerns police and enforcement. My hon. Friend the Member for Hampstead and Highgate (Sir G. Finsberg) raised valid points which the hon. Member for Cumbernauld and Kilsyth commented on absolutely correctly. I have some experience in law enforcement in these difficult areas which are rather different from ordinary police activities. Some years ago, when we were dealing with software, it was perfectly obvious that chief constables and members of the police forces regarded it as an unusual area of activity to which they might be reluctant to commit the necessary resources to ensure that those engaging in criminal activities were brought to justice. Then a special unit was established by FAST to collect, collate, analyse and prepare evidence for placing before prosecuting authorities in Britain. That unit, headed by a former chief superintendent in the Metropolitan police, has become the most expert unit not only in Britain but throughout Europe for tracking down computer criminals. That expertise is widely sought within the industry and internationally.
    It may be necessary for those people who are affected by computer hacking to group together, just as the software industry did, to ensure that they engage in the collecting, collating and preparing of evidence to place not before the court but before the police and the prosecuting authorities to assist them in carrying out their responsibilities to the public and Parliament. I want to pay tribute to the way in which chief constables, the Crown Prosecution Service., the Director of Public Prosecutions and the Lord Advocate have been extremely helpful in dealing with various software matters which often involve substantial breaches of the criminal law.
    By extending the law to cover computer crime the Bill will make the enforcement of a civil law, which is even more important, much easier. There are often hurdles to overcome in the preparation of necessary civil proceedings, but if one can ultimately fall back on the criminal law it is often easier to get the necessary civil admissions to avoid the danger of criminal conviction and so ensure that the civil law works more effectively. That has certainly

    1147
    happened in the software industry, and I expect that it will be an inevitable consequence of the Bill. I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister of State will comment on the international dimension. It may not be appropriate to include the international dimension in the Bill, and certainly I have no proposals to make to the Standing Committee in that regard. Of couse, computer crime is often international crime. It is all very well for us to have an effective law in Britain, but we must ensure that similar laws exist in other major countries. The really serious criminal activities are likely to be netted through international co-operation across frontiers rather than by laws which are limited to activities in Britain. Of course the proof of guilt in British courts will be exactly as it always has been, but cross-border co-operation is becoming increasingly important.
    Yesterday I received a letter from a constituent who is a leading official in one of the world's leading banks. He asked me to support the Bill, and I am happy to assure him that I do so with enthusiasm. I do not suppose that he would have taken the trouble to write to me unless his bank was being troubled by hacking activities. That illustrates the menace that the Bill seeks to address. My hon. Friend the Member for Torridge and Devon, West, in a seminal article in The Times last April, identified some of the specific activities of hackers and the consequences of their hacking in financial and other terms. But specific evidence of individual cases is hard to come by because of quite understandable reticence about commercial activities and confidentiality. When such an important official troubles to write to a Member of Parliament about a specific piece of legislation, knowing the background of his career I have not the slightest doubt that the menace of hacking and its consequences is widespread.
    Hacking may be innocent fun for some, but it is burglary. Much of the problem of dealing with computer crime stems from the fact that what would otherwise be perceived to be criminal activity, because it involves computers, is often thought of as being entirely innocent and, in some cases, just good clean fun, which is what the first offence that my hon. Friend proposes seeks to address. But there is malice in so much hacking and it is extremely important to punish the malicious.
    Mr. Colvin: I am glad that my hon. Friend has touched on that point, because it has also been suggested that the hacker actually provides a service to society, and we should thank him because he is identifying weak links in the network chain and systems which are insecure. He may well be doing that, but if companies really need that service they can authorise the hacker to access and if he has the authority to test the system he is not committing the crime provided for in the Bill.
    Mr. Powell: My hon. Friend makes a valid point. I am unable to accept the argument that the house or warehouse burglar performs a public service by breaking into premises and revealing shortcomings in the security system. The hacker who says that he is performing a public service is doing exactly the same as the burglar who advances by way of mitigation the argument that he is performing a public service. In my time I have advanced many interesting arguments to Her Majesty's judges about why clients should receive prison sentences less severe than
    1148
    those that they were about to receive, but I have never had the cheek and the gall to suggest that such a line of mitigation would be likely to commend itself to judges.
    We must think of hacking as a form of burglary. We must stigmatise such criminal activities for what they are. Because computer buffs use a different vocabulary and have a method of thought different from the conventional method that we all use does not alter the fact that the principles of criminal law are just as clearly at stake.
    We must also bear in mind that, although some criminals will always stick to the traditional areas of robbery and violence, the more sophisticated ones will move into areas where they will hope to get ahead of the law enforcement agencies who will be unable to catch up with their dishonest activities. The Bill will go a long way towards making it perfectly plain to such people that they will engage in such activities at their peril. If their malice and greed are considerable, they will face the same sort of penalties that are imposed on people engaged in more conventional forms of fraud.
    This is an excellent Bill, and I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Romsey and Waterside on his good luck and judgment. I wish the Bill godspeed and I enthusiastically support it.
    10.42 am
    Miss Emma Nicholson: I am glad to be able to support the Bill and I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Romsey and Waterside (Mr. Colvin) for including me in his list of sponsors. We have a hefty batch of sponsors with a great deal of knowledge, as has been demonstrated by the hon. Members who have spoken.
    This is a Bill of great importance, and in years to come society will thank us for it. I see it as the beginning of a package of computer misuse legislation. It builds on the Copyright (Computer Software) Amendment Act 1985. It also builds on the tremendously influential and important Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988 which followed it and which modified and built on the original clauses that were in the original Bill.
    A private Member's Bill in the context of computer law has thus already proved its worth. The route is excellent and can lead to good legislation. After all, the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act is now the model for the directive from Brussels on copyright for computer software throughout Europe. People in the British computer industry who worked on the Act advised Brussels on how to frame the directive.
    As my hon. Friend the Member for Romsey and Waterside said, it is not easy to translate very technical potential crimes into easily understood legislative words and phrases. We are fortunate that the computer industry speaks English. Hon. Members have said that perhaps it is not a form of English that comes easily to the ear. Hon. Members are highly literate and well versed in the English language, and the very brevity and simplicity of computer language may not fall easily on them. Those of us brought up on duodecimal and binary notation believe that the clarity of methemical thought is infinitely superior to the English tongue and, to us, the simplicity of computer language greatly commends itself. The English language now reigns supreme throughout the world and that is

    1149
    probably due to the computer and aviation industries rather than to the beauties of Shakespeare, the Bible and the Book of Common Prayer.
    Dr. Lewis Moonie: What about Greek and Hebrew?
    Miss Nicholson: My copy of the Old Testament in Hebrew is, sadly, not opened very often.
    Through the adoption of the English language as the computer tongue, the computer world has spread so widely that it has become international. That has been mentioned. It is so international that the very beginnings of the computer language in French have long since gone into oblivion. When talking to a French computer specialist no one thinks of a computer as a cerveau electronique. The very idea of an electronic brain makes one feel a little uncomfortable, but the word computer is international.
    It is international because computer hardware has tumbled in price. Unlike the prices of so many consumer durables, hardware prices have gone down and down and so has the purchase price of computer software. The marvellous breakthrough is that computers have not just become human friendly, but are used everywhere. However, the very cheapness has brought an enormous problem. The simplicity of use and the widespread investment by companies and individuals in computers means that anybody who wants to can have access to a computer. It is also easy for people to have access to other people's computers.
    The open-systems interconnection was introduced in 1978 when the great mainframe manufacturers agreed to make computer hardware and software interchangeable for practical purposes so that users could have free competition and free choice. People were able to buy one piece of equipment or software from one manufacturer and compatible equipment from another, whereas in the old days compatible equipment was available only by buying from the same manufacturer.
    The introduction of open-systems interconnection has meant free access into other people's systems, and that freedom of access has attracted the criminal fraternity. I do not mean a burglar in an old-fashioned eye mask carrying a jemmy and with a sack over his back who, I hope, will end up in striped pyjamas in Dartmoor. I am talking about some very unpleasant people in the international criminal fraternity.
    Mr. Colvin: My hon. Friend is canvassing for more constituents, but there is a point that needs to be made. We all welcome the introduction and development of open systems of which the Unix system is one. Without legislation that is agreed internationally, to the effect that unauthorised access is a crime, there is a real danger that owners of computer network systems will be encouraged to erect ring fences of security around their systems. One has in mind university systems that are useful for sharing information and data. Without the law to convict unauthorised users of those systems, there is a danger that the systems will be less open and less available and that society will suffer as a result.
    Miss Nicholson: I fully agree with my hon. Friend. The introduction of Janet, the joint academic network, has led to an enormous exchange of intellectual knowledge between universities, but it has also opened up those
    1150
    universities to unpleasant intruders. Under excellent Government initiatives, universities and research institutes are now undertaking private contracts. I am thinking of the movement towards near-market research which means that many Government-sponsored institutes take on outside contracts. They may undertake contracts that involve commercially sensitive information and which have wider implications. One professor told me how difficult it was for him to leave his computer on-line in the evening, having used it for some important research, knowing that in the morning he would wake up wondering whether someone had used it overnight to rifle a company's files, or even data about his students or his research. Janet and the open network system make it difficult to maintain confidentiality.
    The Open university has suffered immense harassment and is being compelled to change the way in which it educates its students about computers. That university's telephone bills have risen dramatically and most unfairly because its computers have been used as a launch pad by hackers wishing to enter other computers internationally. If one thinks of it in ordinary terms, the university's telephones have been used to call computers in the United States and elsewhere in the world. Those of us who also receive large phone bills may sometimes wonder if hackers have not used our numbers through which to make their calls, because current technology makes that possible.
    Mr. Colvin: If my hon. Friend will allow me to intervene again, and if you will permit me to do so, Mr. Deputy Speaker, it may remove the necessity for me to catch your eye later to wind up the debate.
    My hon. Friend's point emphasises the importance of proper audits. She may recall that a book entitled "The Cuckoo's Egg" revealed that a deficit of only 75 cents in the accounts of an American university led to a major investigation into computer hacking, which unearthed an international network of intrigue and espionage that was extremely damaging to the western powers.
    Miss Nicholson: It is crucial that proper audits are undertaken, and audit partnerships are in the forefront of those supporting the Bill. My hon. Friend referred also to Clifford Stoll. It is unlikely that we shall ever see as a Member of this House someone having his intelligence quotient. He has been attacking the international hacking problem, with the consequence that a case will soon come before the courts in West Germany. However, proper auditing remains crucial.
    My hon. Friend the Member for Romsey and Waterside referred to the somewhat unflattering description of myself that he received through a network. I am pleased that those responsible recognise that the dominant industry in my constituency is not computer hacking but the production of milk. I may tell the House that one farmer in my constituency was overheard remarking to another, "I cannot understand why she is worried about commuter hacking. We don't go to London to work."
    My hon. Friend made the point that the Bill will offer protection to bulletin board users. None of us wants to interrupt the free flow of information between bulletin board users, most of whom are private individuals who enjoy using their personal computers for exchanging information and knowledge in a way that has not been possible before. I can cite a particular example illustrating how important it is to encourage and not restrain bulletin

    1151
    boards. The members of one international club of disabled children use that facility to communicate with each other, gain knowledge and experience, and to make new friends in a way which would otherwise be a physical impossibility for them.
    The Bill will protect such users in two ways. First, it will safeguard databases. Hackers are now playing nasty games with bulletin board users, by entering their systems and wiping out databases for no particular reason, but just to be nasty. If one has built up a database in one's spare time in the evening, for example, finding that it has been completely wiped out is a particularly miserable experience. That happened to one club in this country with 20,000 members.
    Hackers are also breaking into bulletin board networks with pornography. I was foolish enough—but I have been told that—to ask someone to send me an example. All I can say is that I am very glad that I could not see it moving. It was repugnant. That is a particularly beastly thing to do to private bulletin board users, whose fun and interest is being wrecked by their screens being flooded with unspeakable pornography. Any right hon. or hon. Members or members of the public encountering such pornography should report it to the police.
    Mr. Arbuthnot: Does my hon. Friend agree that bulletin boards, like telephone chat lines, are potentially beneficial and useful adjuncts to communication but have the potential for being misused? It is not that misuse that should be controlled, rather than the chat lines themselves?
    Miss Nicholson: Of course. At one time, computers were used by only a few professors and very disciplined professionals, to communicate with one another, but the tremendous growth in microcomputing has meant the entry into the arena of the unspeakable. I am confident that the parliamentary draftsman has the fine tuning right, so that bulletin board users will be protected and not squashed out of existence.
    There are even nastier implications and even more unpleasant people involved—if there can be people even more unpleasant than those who peddle pornography or force it upon others. The "Electronics and Computing for Peace Newsletter" published last summer shows a bomber and a hand emerging from a computer terminal. It also organised a bulletin board debate on my earlier Bill, even though it had already been withdrawn; that simple fact did not seem to have got through to those responsible. That newsletter commented that my earlier Bill
    "would have serious consequences for investigative journalists and campaigning organisations who have to gain information in order to maintain democracy. How is it possible to campaign for decent social justice if you do not know what the Government is doing?"
    That was matched by a letter that I received from a Green supporter who is fighting the Bill, who said that for their purposes Green supporters had to penetrate the secret files of companies and Government and that stepping outside the law for that purpose was crucial. That gives some insight into the minds of people who believe that they have a right of access to all knowledge and that everything should be out in the open—and should specifically be open to them.
    Mr. Ian Bruce: Have those who have contacted my hon. Friend and told her that they need
    1152
    access to electronic data also said that they should be able
    to commit burglary and other such crimes to gain access to information?
    Miss Nicholson: There were comments on burglary in that same "Electronics and Computing for Peace" newsletter and they bear out what my hon. Friend said.
    What is happening internationally? Towards the end of last year the Paris publication, L'Express identified much the same sort of movement and referred to the hackers of Hamburg. According to L'Express, in a few months the hackers of Hamburg were in touch with the Red Army through a contact derived from Amsterdam—it is a very international affair. In under a year the group had accessed and gone through a number of highly protected and important networks, including those at NASA and at CERN, the nuclear research institute near Geneva on the borders of France and Switzerland. They had been through Philips of France, and, through INTERNET, they had gained access to 20,000 American and European naval and military computers. In the same period, an active sympathiser of the Red Army had gone into the electronic mail boxes of the German post, which contained sensitive information emanating from officials and Government bodies. The problem has been identified not only in L'Express but in a mass of other publications; it is no idle worry.
    An anarchist magazine called Insurrection—a British publication—gives us the key to the matter:
    "Information systems and the data they contain have become the backbone of capital and of the State. They could be compared to the blood circulation. What is certain is that the present economic, political and social information can no longer function without this network which is taking on greater and greater proportions."
    Pages of fine detail follow, telling supporters how to access Government, military and private computer systems. The understanding implicit in that article matches and surpasses the Law Commission's understanding of viruses and networks, and certainly surpasses all our knowledge, in telling us the physical details on how to break into computer systems. The article concludes:
    "Without doubt any revolutionary prospect today also bases inself on the need to destroy the apparatus of dominion through the deepening of a knowledge of the arms which the class enemy has at its disposal."
    That may be rather poor English, but the message is clear.
    The Bill is also important on the domestic scene. Increasingly, the Government have sought to maximise our resources and minimise our expenditure by computerisation. That is especially true in the National Health Service. My hon. Friend the Member for Romsey and Waterside, briefly mentioned medical records. It is crucial that we should consider that question because we have computerised hospital and GP databases and the smart card or care card, a concept launched in Exmouth, whereby a small credit card-type card carries a microchip which can link in to a mainframe containing even more
    medical information. Computerised medical records bring maximum danger for the security and privacy of the individual.
    My hon. Friend the Member for Romsey and Waterside has already said that there is no privacy in the United Kingdom and that no value is placed on information. We are unique among western nations in that respect. Nearly every other country has some sort of protection of the citizen's privacy and of information that is kept about him. I believe strongly that we need to

    1153
    address that concept before too long. It would be wrong, foolish and shortsighted to try to address it in the Bill, which is not about information but about computer systems security. They are two different concepts, and we should remember that a computer can store worthless or invaluable information.
    Following the Law Commission's document No. 110 on information, which was published in 1983, I believe that we should most seriously reconsider the question. In the wake of the Bill—once it has reached the statute book—we must look into the problem of information.
    I know of cancer victims whose medical records have been accessed. Such patients may not have told their husbands, fathers or employers how bad their cancer is or what their likely expectation of life is and they certainly do not want the information to be given to others without their agreement. They may not—dare I say it—even know themselves; the doctor may have deemed it better to keep the knowledge from the patient, in which case the decision was probably wrong, although that is another matter. In France there are well-documented cases of the most easily visible problem. AIDS victims can be discovered through their blood details and then they can be blackmailed. That is an extreme example but one can imagine other uncomfortable circumstances in which people's medical records are known by others who do not have their best interests at heart. Extremely unpleasant things have happened in the United States, where people have tried to kill patients in hospital by accessing their drug records and altering their prescriptions on computer. It is important to consider the implications as we rapidly computerise medical records in the United Kingdom. I know that we shall have to look into the matter.
    The problem also applies to social security records. We have 22 million records on line—that is the number of social security claimants. Not only are those records on line; they are local, and it will therefore be difficult to protect them. With the introduction of the community charge, too, much information about individuals will be collected by local treasurers for the first time and held on computer. The only way in which to manage the community charge economically is to place the information on computer. I have heard of cases in Lothian and in other parts of Scotland where it is said that hackers have accessed district treasurers' computers and wiped out records of people over 18 and alive who are eligible to pay the community charge and substituted dead people's details. In my area, a gentleman who now resides in a grave received a demand for the community charge. The vicar who received the form on his behalf filled in the box in which one is asked to identify the head of household with "God".
    I use those examples to point out the increasingly important part that computers play in the administration of Government services locally and nationally. The large computerisation programme being undertaken by the Inland Revenue is also crucial. It is most important that the extensive new computer systems are kept properly secure. The Inland Revenue has properly invested in the best possible security systems in terms of both hardware and software, but even so, that does not allow for the fact that, under current legislation, breaking in—I use that term, although we are not talking about physical break-ins—to a computer system, looking at people's records and corrupting those records is a wholly legal activity.
    1154
    It is no good saying that people must increase their protection, because hackers are very clever. They will find a way round every form of protection that one buys or creates. That is what they are there for. They make a great deal of money out of it and the German hackers, at any rate, support a drug-based lifestyle on their activities. I was about to say, "enjoy", but I should certainly not enjoy a lifestyle based on drugs. Because drugs are expensive, hackers need to make a great deal of money to support their lifestyle.
    Government computerisation has made us all a great deal more vulnerable, as has company computerisation. The City of London money markets, Lloyd's and all sorts of financial organisations that have made Britain financially great and far advanced depend upon computers.
    I am proud to say that all the main clearing banks support the initiative to outlaw hacking. I have letters from them all—and from the Bank of England and the great financial institutions of the City of London. The banks have been most public spirited. I do not hesitate to name Barclay's bank. Sir John Quinton was the first to say that Barclays had a problem. He was public spirited enough to stand up and be counted. When I carried out my research 18 months ago, everybody was willing to admit privately that there were problems, but nobody was willing to admit that publicly. Other great supporters of the initiative are the mainframe manufacturers, in particular IBM and DEC. Their chief executives have provided great help. A number of membership organisations have come forward, such as the British Computer Society, where John Brookes and his colleagues have been working so hard, and the CBI where John Banham and Judith Vinson have worked tirelessly on the problem and have been incredibly helpful to all of us.
    At this point I ought to refer to the amendments that I intend to table in Committee. If the Committee turns them down, that will just be hard luck on me, but at least they will have been given an airing. They will at some point have to be incorporated in legislation. This may not be the right Bill in which to incorporate them. I shall propose that electronic eavesdropping should be outlawed and that computer evidence be receivable in court. I cannot believe that Judge Pickles will be able to understand how a computer crime may have been committed if he does not have in front of him a couple of print outs. I do not know whether he will ask the sort of questions that his colleague asked about Miss Bordes. I despair of our judges. I should prefer some of my colleagues who are computer literate to be the judges in such cases. They are wasting their talents. They ought to be where they would count.
    Mr. Colvin: My hon. Friend gave the impression that under section 69 of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 computer evidence is not admissible in court. It is, in fact, admissible in court. Will she clarify that point?
    Miss. Nicholson: I should prefer to clarify it in Committee or I shall have to deal in detail with my amendments. I know that my hon. Friend does not want me to do that today. There is a time and a place for that.
    There are ways in which computer evidence receivable in court can properly be strengthened. The Law Commission thought that the ways in which computer evidence could be receivable in court had not been properly explored. I, and others, believe that it would be

    1155
    sensible to address the problem now and to incorporate a provision covering that aspect in the Bill. That is why it took the form of a clause in the Bill that I introduced.
    Apart from the police needing more resources to track down criminals, we shall also have to consider how the police go about that task. When the police investigate, say, a burglary they have to obtain a magistrate's warrant. That is the way in which the police ought to pursue these almost invisible criminals. I shall also table an amendment on electronic picketing.
    As this is an international problem, we must fall into line with our international partners. However much we may wish to retain our sovereignty within the European Community, the fact is that there is no electronic sovereignty. Whether we like it or not, this is one world and we are late in introducing legislation to combat computer misuse.
    The Netherlands, the Federal Republic of Germany, Iceland, Canada, the United States and France have already introduced legislation. France introduced a law in 1985. It is a very complicated law because the French language is so refined, with the result that they have gone so far with definitions that they have never been tested. Our law, drafted in English by our parliamentary draftsmen will be capable of being used.
    The United States legislated in 1984 against hacking. They are now legislating against viruses. Switzerland's constitution contains a clause that relates to the protection of a citizen's reputation. They have used that clause against computer hackers. Switzerland now believes that comprehensive legislation is required.
    Britain is a Johnny-come-lately. I do not accept that the Secretary of State could not have included a Bill covering computer misuse in the Queen's Speech. He has seen the light too late. If a Bill can be introduced now, it should have been possible to prepare one in time for Government legislation. That is where it rightly belongs. I give all credit to my hon. Friend the Member for Romsey and Waterside for having recognised the importance of introducing a Bill on computer misuse and for having taken up the matter with great energy and vigour. I am positive that he will ensure that it reaches the statute book. I most warmly congratulate him on introducing the Bill.
    Legislation that may follow may point in two different directions. We shall have to address the problem of access to information. The second problem relates to the use of computers. This Bill is concerned with computer misuse. Standards vary greatly. The amount of information held on computers affects all our lives. It matters, therefore, that high standards, especially in the public sector, should be maintained. The United States has introduced much legislation to cover that aspect. I hope to introduce similar legislation after the Bill reaches the statute book.
    I thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for calling me to speak in the debate. I thank in particular lawyers such as Stephen Saxby, the chairman of the faculty of law at Southampton university, the British and Irish legal education and technological associations and other lawyers who have worked so hard to ensure the introduction of this Bill. I commend it to the House. I shall assist in what I hope will be its speedy passage on to the statute book.
    11.17 am
    Dr. Lewis Moonie: I preface my remarks with an apology to hon. Members for the fact that I shall be unable to stay until the end of the debate. I have a pressing family commitment early this afternoon. I apologise to the hon. Member for Romsey and Waterside (Mr. Colvin) and to his hon. Friends and mine for that discourtesy.
    I have many years of experience of working with computers. In the computer sense, I remain semi-literate. I know a great deal about what they ought to be able to do and what they can do, but I know very little about their methods of operation. I have used them in industry, in a personal capacity, in my work in the National Health Service and in local government. I can testify to the damage, so eloquently described by the hon. Member for Torridge and Devon, West (Miss Nicholson), which can be done to crucial health care systems. The unauthorised tampering with files relating to diabetes cases has had a serious effect on the management of a group of seriously ill patients. I hope that the hon. Member for Romsey and Waterside will forgive me if I direct mild criticism not at him but at his colleagues on the Front Bench.
    The Bill is both important and necessary. It is a belated recognition of the growing and serious problem of unauthorised breaches of, and access to, computer files. The problem is compounded in many cases by interference with or destruction of the material in those files. The motive for many of those acts is simple to understand—human greed. We are all familiar with greed—not with personal greed, but as a general principle.
    Although we do not condone theft, we can possibly understand the need or personal circumstances which may drive someone to commit that act. That is not the case with the kind of computer misuse that we are discussing. Very often the people involved are educated professional people and they have the wherewithal to afford to carry out such behaviour.
    Mr. William Powell: I hope that the hon. Gentleman will not overlook the fact that, while greed is obviously important, so is malice.
    Dr. Moonie: I was coming to that. Although we may not accept greed, we can understand it. The motive for malice is more difficult to comprehend. I can understand it thanks to my background in psychiatry. I have seen more examples of the human reasoning behind such apparently senseless and vicious acts which can result in wanton damage to someone's well-being or property.
    The motives for malice are very complex. I believe that they are related to the kind of person who promotes pornography through bulletin boards and who then has a secret and nasty chuckle to himself in the security of his own room. They are similar to people who make obscene telephone calls or misuse short-wave radio. There are many kinds of people involved and most, although not exclusively all, are men. Although I have never professed to have espoused the cause of Freud in my psychiatric work, I believe that a profound sexual inadequacy is often related to such behaviour.
    Miss Emma Nicholson: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that it is extremely unfair that amateur radio enthusiasts are strictly controlled by law, while amateur computer enthusiasts or professionals are not?
    Dr. Moonie: I agree wholeheartedly. The hon. Lady has said that she will introduce amendments in Committee, and the Opposition will look at them with great sympathy and interest to see whether we can support them.
    As has already been said, the consequences of computer hacking can be very serious. Information technology, including the storage of data in computer files—which is what we are particularly concerned with today—and the ability to transfer it instantaneously anywhere in the world, plays a crucial role in modern society. Without it, many things that we take for granted would be either inconceivable or, at the least, extremely difficult and time-consuming to perform.
    I have had wide experience of computer systems, but I have yet to see one that saves money for the organisation that employs it. The system may allow the organisation to do much more with its information, but sadly it will not save it money. Saving money was always the motive that we advanced in local government when requesting greater and better computer systems to operate our financial management and housing. I have yet to see a system which saves money, but they have become indispensable.
    In many cases details of records and transactions are held only in electronic form—certainly only in the immediately retrievable sense. As a consequence, there are vast savings in storage space as the former manual records would have taken up a great deal of room. The electronic systems are therefore particularly valuable for small organisations for which space is often at a premium.
    The loss of data in electronic form would be a crippling blow for many social and commercial organisations. One of the nastiest cases involving such loss of data occurred last year when a very worthy charitable organisation had its files interfered with by a so-called computer virus and suffered catastrophic loss of data as a result.
    Every authority recognises that interference with electronically held data is growing. However, the true extent of the problem is still, sadly, difficult to estimate. After all, only the most florid examples hit the headlines—for example, major frauds and the so-called AIDS diskette to which the hon. Member for Romsey and Waterside referred. Those obvious examples hit the headlines while others do not. The evidence suggests that
    very few of the detectable offences lead to successful prosecutions for fraud.
    To summarise the present position, I can possibly do no better than to quote the CBI briefing, possibly a rare occurrence for an Opposition Member. The briefing refers to three principles. It states:
    "There is a need for the law to keep pace with changes in modern information and control technology and its uses.
    The risks that accompany many forms of computer misuse are considerable.
    There is substantial evidence of the damage and losses that computer misuse can cause."
    The case for legislation is overwhelming. As the hon. Member for Corby (Mr. Powell) asked, why must we have a private Member's Bill to introduce this worthwhile legislation rather than the Government introducing their own primary legislation? Most hon. Members agree that action is urgent and necessary. I do not accept the defence that there was not enough time to introduce a Bill because of the timing of the Law Commission report. There may not have been time to mention a Bill in the Queen's Speech, but that did not prevent the introduction last year of a Firearms (Amendment) Bill when it proved necessary. Nor did it stop the Government introducing the Football
    1158
    Spectators Bill, which was not included in the previous year's Queen's Speech. There are ample precedents for the Government to introduce legislation when there is a pressing need for it.
    I am a representative of the Opposition Trade and Industry team, and I find it bewildering to understand why the legislation is being introduced through the Department of Trade and Industry and not through the Home Office. The Minister for Industry may have had his arm twisted to deal with the Bill, but he is well versed in the operations of the Home Office and perhaps he can bring that slant to our proceedings.
    I am concerned that important and necessary legislation should be subjected to the vagaries of the private Member's Bill procedure. Often over the past few years worthwhile measures have bitten the dust because they ran out of time or because someone was not too keen on the following private Member's Bill and decided to use the present Bill as a means of thwarting someone else.
    Mr. Ian Bruce: Is not one of the advantages of the private Member's Bill procedure that we hear excellent speeches from Opposition Members? They look at the measure on its merits instead of deciding how to oppose it?
    Dr. Moonie: I can assure the hon. Gentleman that the Labour party always considers measures on their merits. The fact that we find very little merit in most of what the Government do, does not preclude us on occasions accepting and even supporting measures. However, I accept that the Bill might have been framed more widely by the Government and we might have found more in it on which to take issue.
    Mr. Colvin: Further to the point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Dorset, South (Mr. Bruce), supporters of a private Member's Bill are encouraged to make useful and constructive interventions in Committee. However, with Government legislation, they often sit in Committee like a lot of tailors' dummies.
    Dr. Moonie: That is one way of describing them. That is perhaps an argument for timetabling all Bills and, frankly, that is a measure which I for one would wholeheartedly support in the interests of adequate debate. However, I recognise that there might then be an overwhelming number of very long and boring inconsequential speeches from the Government Benches rather than from the Opposition Benches, as some would say happens at the moment.
    Mr. William Powell: Are we to detect a change in Labour party policy? When the matter was discussed and voted on previously, Opposition Front-Bench Members rejected it.
    Dr. Moonie: It is an accepted convention that, on Friday mornings when a private Member's Bill is being debated, Front-Bench Members often speak in a personal capacity. I assure the hon. Member for Corby that that is what I am doing. [Interruption.] That was another sedentary intervention by the Minister. I am certain that he will defend his case with his customary vigour. When he defends the Government for allowing the private Member's Bill procedure to be used for this measure, it will be interesting to note by how many decibels his voice rises. I have served on many Committees with the Minister and

    1159
    I have noted an almost 100 per cent. Correlation—the louder the Minister's voice, the more inadequate his case. Opposition Members will listen with great interest.
    On initial reading, the Bill is well drafted, and I compliment those who are responsible for it. The notes are excellent and comprehensive. However, the Bill should cover various degrees of offence. I shall not refer to all the clauses in detail, but I disagree with the suggestion that the Bill should not attempt to define a computer. We need to apply more thought to whether a computer can be defined in terms that are broad enough to act as a catch-all for future development.
    Mr. Colvin: I thought long and hard about definitions. The problem is that it was six weeks ago when I first defined the word "computer" to my satisfaction. That definition is already out of date. The passage of time and the pace of development within the computer industry mean that any definition of a computer or a computer system would soon be out of date. We would have to write in provisions for secondary legislation so that, every year, a Standing Committee could consider the matter and Ministers could redefine what they meant by a computer system. On balance, the matter is far better left to the courts to decide.
    Dr. Moonie: Perhaps that is an over-mechanistic definition of "computer". Computers could adequately be defined by function.
    Miss Emma Nicholson: I recommend that the hon. Gentleman, whose acuity I cherish, looks at the French law. It was difficult for the Library to find the French law, but the staff kindly sent for it from France. I was interested to see the definition in French, largely because, when hon. Members were working on the Copyright, Designs and Patents Bill in Committee and I tabled new clause 13 which outlawed hacking for copyright purposes, the French copyright Act was much in my thoughts and reading. The French law against hacking, which was introduced in 1985 and has not yet been tested, amounts to many pages. The French brain, with all its brilliance, loves to define and redefine. The French have ended up with a mammoth Bill that is full of technical definitions which, as far as I can gather, have not been used.
    Dr. Moonie: Of course, there are also the inadequacies of the French language to contend with. We cannot really expect the French language to legislate in English.
    Mr. Harry Cohen: I was interested to hear the hon. Member for Romsey and Waterside (Mr. Colvin) say that he did not include a definition of a computer because it was difficult to do so. Does my hon. Friend agree that that is a rather poor excuse? Does not the lack of a definition create a great catch-all? The law could be brought into disrepute if people are charged with something that the House presumably does not presently envisage will be a crime but which will become a crime because there is no definition.
    Dr. Moonie: My hon. Friend makes a good point. Hon. Members will be interested to hear what he says on the subject. Perhaps we can return to it in Committee.
    I am grateful that Scottish circumstances have been properly covered. That is consequent on the Scottish Law
    1160
    Commission's report. I assume that the relevant clause has been drafted exactly as it proposed it and that, therefore, there will no difficulty with Scots Law.
    I may have some difficulty with two clauses. For example, I should like an explanation of why clause 11 does not extend to Scotland. As a layman, I assume that it is because of some difference between the laws of the two countries. I may also have some difficulty with clause 12. I shall need an assurance that full and proper control will be exercised over access to computer files by the police or any other authority. I am not certain whether anomalies will be created by clause 12. Sadly, it is not inconceivable that a police officer will commit an offence under the Bill, and I should not like him to be protected by the wording of the clause. However, I accept that full discussion can take place in Committee. I have no comments to make about the remaining clauses.
    The Bill is generally accepted as being worthwhile and necessary, and it will receive substantial support from both sides of the House. Of course, that does not mean that Opposition Members are entirely happy with it or that we shall not seek to amend it in Committee. I am quite certain that the hon. Member for Romsey and Waterside and some of his hon. Friends will attempt to do so.
    There remain several fundamental questions that are probably common to criminal legislation. First, will the Bill provide adequate deterrence? It may deter the occasional recreational hacker, but the seriously disturbed person who perpetrates serious offences may not be adequately deterred by it. People will not be deterred if there seems to be little chance of being caught. Will the Bill be practicable and will the police be able to enforce it? The hon. Member for Hampstead and Highgate (Sir G. Finsberg) asked whether adequate training would be available for police officers to carry out proper investigations. It is easy to assume that the passage of a law makes it possible to convict people under it, but we must catch them first. It is not easy to locate someone who is committing a computer offence. With the development of electronic tracing, whereby a number is accessed—most computers are accessed through a modem—the source of the call can be immediately traced. That matter should be looked at carefully. We may need to make provision for it in the Bill in case there are difficulties. Will inventive minds find some way of circumventing the Bill? I hope that its drafting is secure enough to prevent that.
    I support the Bill in principle. Its internal structure is sound, but it is a matter of conjecture whether it will do what it is purported to do.
    11.38 am
    Mr. Gary Waller: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Romsey and Waterside (Mr. Colvin) on bringing forward one of the most important private Member's Bills in recent years and on his extremely comprehensive presentation. My hon. Friend the Member for Torridge and Devon, West (Miss Nicholson) must also be considered to be one of the true begetters of this important legislation.
    Nobody really knows how widespread computer-linked crime is, both internationally and in this country. I use the phrase "computer-linked crime" because much of the wrongful activity that one associates with computers is already criminal. A great deal of what one might call "insider abuse" by people who work for a company or who

    1161
    have been dismissed by that company falls in that category, especially when they damage the company's programs or software.
    One difficulty is that while we are aware of the tip of the iceberg, we do not know how much lies below the surface. With most crime, people realise that they have had a crime committed against them and it is a matter of detecting who has committed it. However, with a great deal of computer-linked crime, if one is aware that a crime has been committed, it is sometimes possible easily to identify the perpetrator.
    There are signs that the activities that have been discussed this morning and other similar activities linked with computers exist on a vast scale. It is interesting to consider the position in Hong Kong because, remarkably, it has been estimated that at least 80 per cent. of the computers in Hong Kong are or have been infected with at least one kind of virus. Indeed, about eight different viruses are doing the rounds. Perhaps one reason for that is that even quite large companies in Hong Kong tend to use pirated software. That is another problem to which the House has devoted its attention and to which we shall doubtless return. That problem is compounded in Hong Kong because the security procedures there are often disregarded. A computer consultant with Price Waterhouse, Mr. Jimmy Mah, has said:
    "It's quite simple. If I wanted my competitor to go bankrupt I would just anonymously send someone in that company an infected games disk."
    That happens on a large scale in Hong Kong. I endorse everything that has been said about the Bill not being a substitute for security, but unless there is reasonable security, backed up by legislative provisions, we could face in Britain the dangers that have been well demonstrated in Hong Kong.
    Some would say that the existing provisions in the law are adequate. However, they have been tested only once or twice. Reference might be made to the famous instance in 1987 when the Duke of Edinburgh's Prestel mail box was penetrated. In what has come to be known as the "Gold and Shifreen" case, the House of Lords ruled that falsely persuading a computer that certain information had originated from a specific individual did not amount in law to forgery.
    The applicability to computers of other offences such as false pretences and misrepresentation has yet to be tested by the courts. However, the whole area is shrouded in great doubt. It is right that the House should be sufficiently up to date to take account of the changes in technology that necessitate a modification of our existing law.
    As has already been said, some people have suggested that some of the low-level activities that are dealt with in clause 1 do not do a great deal of harm. However, that is doubtful. It is worth considering the valuable work that has been carried out by Mr. Tim Hackworth of the British Computer Society, which has drawn attention to the serious harm that may sometimes have been caused unintentionally. Two French hackers, for example, broke into a life-support system in a hospital's intensive care unit and, perhaps unwittingly, turned it off. There are several known instances of people breaking into air traffic control systems. One trembles to think of the dangers of that. I shall refer later to actions that are being taken in respect of such critical systems. In another instance, somebody who was HIV-positive had his medical records penetrated and was subjected to blackmail. In another instance, an
    1162
    insurance company's records were penetrated and aspiring burglars had access to information about items that householders had declared as being of special value. Finally, and perhaps most commonly, there are many known instances of disgruntled employees disrupting their firm's records and perhaps taking commercially confidential product information with them in the hope of attracting a new employer or of selling it to the competitors of their previous firm.
    The Department of Trade and Industry has done a great deal of work on the safety of critical systems and it is likely that, in future, systems such as those linked to air traffic control will be much more secure. It is important that such systems should not be accessible via the public network. I believe that we can be assured by a great deal of the work that is being carried out in that area.
    Mr. Colvin: As one with an interest in civil aviation, I have investigated this issue and have been assured that the air traffic control system in the United Kingdom is on a closed circuit and that it is therefore virtually impossible for a hacker to gain access. That is vital, because otherwise one might start a lot of alarmist reporting that would give people the feeling that they were in danger in the air. I am assured that our ATC system is safe.
    Mr. Waller: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. Whatever the secure system, it is absolutely right that it should be backed by the law. It should be clear that there are severe penalties—such as those provided in my hon. Friend's Bill—to show that society regards such activities as absolutely indefensible.
    My hon. Friend and others have already dealt with the question of the intention to cause harm and the beliefs of some people about those who indulge in hacking only as a hobby, without any wish to cause harm. It could be argued that drunken drivers have no intention of causing harm, but that would not be regarded as an excuse. Indeed, my hon. Friend the Member for Corby (Mr. Powell) has said that he has never used the defence in court that a burglar had burgled a house for the public good.
    That brings me to my next point, about security. It has been suggested that if the security is not very good, that in some way mitigates the offence. It is interesting that in West Germany, where similar legislative provisions exist, the degree of security is taken into account. It would therefore be possible for a computer hacker or somebody who penetrated a system there to argue that its security was inadequate. However, if my hon. Friend the Member for Corby were presenting a case, I do not think that he would suggest that it was a defence that the house had an inadequate lock. Everybody should be encouraged to apply the maximum security, but the fact that such security does not exist to a sufficient extent is no defence for somebody who might be accused under the Bill.
    Reference has been made to the arrival of the single European market in 1992. Much work is being done in the computer sector to prepare for that. Open-systems interconnection work is moving along fast. It is a set of internationally accepted technical standards which enable the computer system to operate across national boundaries with almost any other computer system, irrespective of the national or commercial origin of the hardware or software. That makes it even more urgent not only to press ahead with legislation in this country, but to discuss with our partners within the Community and

    1163
    indeed, outside it, the need for measures in other countries. It must be generally accepted throughout the Community and internationally—to the extent that that is possible—that computer misuse is a criminal act for which appropriate sanctions must exist.
    When discussing the damage that can be done, it is worth pointing out that even the police national computer has not been free from penetration. Someone successfully interchanged several criminal records on its database. When he was caught he argued that he had not destroyed, stolen or, indeed, falsified the information, which was still intact. He had simply moved it around. In that case, the person involved was successfully prosecuted for falsifying evidence put before a court. One wonders whether there are other instances where information was not obtained and put before a court because such action was carried out successfully. Here again, we come to the tip of the iceberg syndrome and the need for action to be taken. It is another reason why the Bill is welcome.
    I pay tribute to the work of David Frost, who is a partner in the data security group of Price Waterhouse, a company which already has considerable experience in this matter. Mr. Frost has done a great deal of research into the position in other countries. It is interesting that the number of countries with legislative provisions against computer misuse is growing all the time. It includes Australia, Canada, Japan, Holland, the United States of America and West Germany.
    Two incidents have arisen recently in north America. In one, four college students were arrested for making $20,000 worth of long-distance telephone calls by using a program that dialled toll-free numbers. The program then took control of the company's electronic switch so that the calls could be re-routed to any part of the world. In another case, a university professor was suspended after making improper use of the university's computer facilities for his own purpose.
    A wide range of people are prepared to take advantage of loopholes in the law. My hon Friend the Member for Romsey and Waterside is plugging an important loophole with his Bill. By doing so, he is doing a service not only to the House but to the nation.
    11.53 pm
    Mr. Harry Cohen: I congratulate the hon. Member for Romsey and Waterside (Mr. Colvin) on winning a high position in the ballot, but he could have chosen a better Bill. I have serious doubts about it, and not because I approve of hackers or believe that those who misuse or gain unauthorised access to a computer are doing something harmless.
    The Bill is ill defined. We have heard aleady that it does not define what a computer is. It is lopsided and does not tackle the most important aspects of computer misuse, its implications have not been well thought out. For example, it contains unnecessary criminalisation, and in years to come will affect areas which the sponsor does not envisage.
    I wish to make a few comments about the parliamentary process surrounding the Bill and the involvement of the Government and the Law Commission. The Law Commission was harassed by the hon. Member for Torridge and Devon, West (Miss Nicholson) into producing quickly a report on computer
    1164
    misuse. It is one of the few Law Commission reports that I have seen that has been published without accompanying draft legislation. That haste means that we have no means of comparing the intricate details of the legislative proposals in the Bill with those that would have been produced by the Law Commission.
    One difference between the Bill and the Law Commission recommendations that I have noticed is that the sentence has been increased from three months to six months imprisonment. I assume that that is to do with the rate of inflation. Perhaps the sponsor will reply to that point. Is that the only way in which the Bill differs from the Law Commission's proposals? For example, the first sentence of the explanatory memorandum of the Bill says:
    "This Bill gives effect, with modifications, to recommendations made by the Law Commission in its Report on Computer Misuse."
    That sentence is unhelpful. If we do not know how the Commission's proposals have been modified, how can we properly discuss the Bill? The sponsor should furnish a complete list of the modifications when the Bill goes into Committee.
    The Minister for Industry (Mr. Douglas Hogg): The hon. Gentleman asks what the Law Commission would have recommended by way of legislation. If he cares to look at page 35 of the commission's report, he will see a concise and useful summary of the main recommendations. With slight and few exceptions, the Bill reflects those recommendations.
    Mr. Cohen: Of course I shall do that. However, the usual process was not employed. Normally the Law Commission produces its own draft legislation which can be compared with the Bill. I take the Minister's point. It testifies to the haste with which the Bill has been brought forward.
    On 10 October last year Mr. Peter Casey, the director of computer security at the Department of Trade and Industry, sent out a letter asking for comments on the Law Commission's report by the end of October. He allowed only three weeks for people to respond. The letter said that its purpose was to ask for supporting evidence that would help establish a case for or against legislation. It said that the Government aimed to legislate in the current Session. Clearly he assumed in October that the legislation would be in Government time.
    In early November something happened. We had smoke signals from the old fag end himself, the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry. They suggested that, because of the pressure of legislation in the Queen's speech, Government time would not be found for the Bill. In true Marie-Antoinette fashion, he was quoted in the press as saying something like, "Let them find a private Member to promote the Bill."
    Private Members' time is precious. It should not be taken over by the Government. The Government may rewrite and help with the Bill, but they should not use a private Member to promote their Bill. We are dealing with a 19-clause Government Bill promoted by a private Member. That is an encroachment on our time by the Government.
    Mr. Colvin: The hon. Gentleman should direct his remarks at me rather than at my hon. Friend the Minister. If he had been in the Chamber earlier, he would have heard me say that I believe that there is decided merit in the Bill

    1165
    being introduced by a Back Bencher. If the Bill was introduced by the Government, they might be persuaded to exceed the recommendations of the Law Commission's report, especially with regard to police powers. Perhaps my hon. and learned Friend the Minister will comment on that. My Bill has stuck closely to the Law Commission's recommendations, which have been debated at great length, just as the working paper No. 110 on which the Law Commission based its recommendations has been the subject of debate for some time. Many people gave evidence and many have written in support of those recommendations.
    The hon. Gentleman is a strong supporter of the rights and privileges of Back Benchers to introduce legislation. I am sure he would be the first to agree that, as a Back Bencher is promoting this Bill, any temptation to add to police powers—about which we must all think carefully—could be resisted.
    Mr. Cohen: I accept that point, and I agree that any Back Bencher may introduce any Bill that he likes, but the signs suggest that this is a Government Bill. It is a big Bill and I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Kirkcaldy (Dr. Moonie) that there would have been advantages in the Government presenting it. It then would have been subject to scrutiny and the Government would have been obliged to defend its proposals, whether or not they went beyond the Law Commission's recommendations. A barrage of civil servants would also be available to provide information. When the Bill goes to Committee, the hon. Member for Romsey and Waterside and his colleagues may not have all the detailed facts available. The Government, however, could present such details about the change in the law.
    It is worth noting the contents of early-day motion 412, which condemns:
    "the unprecedented taking of Back Benchers' rare prime debating time by a Front Bench Member"—
    referring to my hon. Friend the Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook), who introduced a ten-minute Bill on the ambulance dispute in an attempt to get it settled—
    "thereby usurping a Back Bencher's customary prerogative."
    The Government, however, are using Back Benchers' time to introduce this Bill. The hon. Member for Romsey and Waterside and the hon. Members for Torridge and Devon, West (Miss Nicholson) and for Coventry, South West (Mr. Butcher), who are sponsors of the Bill, signed the EDM about Back Benchers' time being usurped, yet here they are supporting a Bill that does just that.
    The Bill criminalises the act of unauthorised access to a computer, irrespective of the circumstances in which that is done. A person might access a computer to read something that he could obtain in a library—for example, a Shakespearean sonnet. Such an act will become a criminal offence subject to six-months' imprisonment. By contrast, an unauthorised person who reads the most sensitive manual files can get away with it, but such action is far more offensive.
    We would be misleading ourselves if we believed that the Bill is anodyne or uncontroversial. The heated argument that occurred when the British Computer Society had a meeting on 27 November in a Committee Room of the House demonstrated that. That argument was between Professor Brian Niblett, a Home Office adviser and an eminent specialist in computer law, and the hon. Member for Torridge and Devon, West. My researcher, together with about 130 computer specialists
    1166
    and barristers, was present. At the end of the debate the vote was close, 3:2 in favour of the Law Commission' proposals, which demonstrates the depth of division about the Bill.
    That division was highlighted by the press release from the Data Protection Registrar, whose job is to achieve a balance between the users of personal data and the individuals affected. The headline ran:
    "Some Hacking Should Be A Crime"—
    not all—
    "But exclude younsters for simply misbehaving".
    The Bill is all about hacking and the press release stated:
    "In response to the Law Commission, the Data Protection Registrar has given his views on 'hacking' into computer files. The CBI recently commented on these views. The Registrar, Mr. Eric Howe, supports the criminalisation of some cases of hacking, but emphasises the duty of computer users to protect their own systems and data adequately. 'This is not a simple issue', Mr. Howe said."
    The promoter of the Bill is treating it as such because he is treating all hacking as illegal. Mr. Howe continued:
    "I take the view that, rather than creating a single blanket offence, a selective approach is more appropriate.
    One offence should be related to an intent on the part of the 'hacker' to gain some advantage for himself or another, or to damage another person's interests. A second category could arise when actual damage is caused to data or software, whether inadvertently or not. And finally an offence barrier should be established for some particular kinds of systems which affect the health or safety of individuals and with which any attempt to interfere might endanger life. These could include, for example, air traffic control and medical systems.
    Mere misbehaviour, for example by youngsters, is not a matter which we normally would seek to criminalise unless it has some significant effect. To criminalise all unauthorised access or attempts at accesss regardless of whether there is damage or risk of damage would be to take a serious step which I find hard to justify as a matter of principle.
    I believe that it would be wrong to criminalise those who have no criminal intent and create no hazard. This is analogous to a case of trespass where no damage is caused. There may be a case, however, for dealing with persistent unauthorised access.
    We should not lose sight of the fact that computer users ought to protect their own systems and, as regards personal data, this is a duty clearly established in the Data Protection Principles. You've only yourself to blame if your neighbour's cattle get into your unfenced field."
    That press release presents a much more sophisticated case for what is criminalised or not than does the Bill, under which all hacking will be illegal.
    Some barristers are also against the proposals. In The Times of 21 April 1989 Alistair Kelman, a barrister specialising in computer law, said:
    "The only gap in the law is when a hacker gains access to a computer and just has a look around."—
    that is the key phrase.
    "But the existing laws of fraud, theft and criminal damage cover cases where financial loss or intentional damage occurs."
    He queried why those who access a computer just to have a look around should be guilty of an offence. If a hacker breaks into a medical database and uses the information to blackmail someone, he would be caught by the law on blackmail. The hacker who broke into a defence computer and sold its secrets would be prosecuted under the Official Secrets Act 1989. As a result of the Bill, someone who accesses a computer just to have a look round will be guilty of a section 1 offence. The Bill's net is being cast far too wide, and it will lead to many people, some vulnerable, committing a crime where none now exists.
    The word "computer" is not defined in the Bill. On 13 March 1989 there was a debate in the House at 3 am to

    1167
    which the hon. Member for Beverley (Mr. Cran) and my hon. Friend the Member for Huddersfield (Mr. Sheerman) contributed. Given its timing, some hon. Members may be unaware of it. The debate was about the lack of legislation covering electronic surveillance devices. Those hon. Gentlemen were rightly trying to pressurise the Government into controlling surreptitious electronic surveillance devices which can be bought cheaply and which are being used increasingly to infringe privacy. The then Minister of State, Home Office, now the Government Chief Whip, said that when controlling such devices there was a major problem about their definition. He said:
    "The Government are not persuaded that it is practicable or necessary to extend the criminal law to cover electronic or other surveillance or eavesdropping, objectionable though such activities can undoubtedly be. A criminal offence must be clearly defined, well understood and capable of effective enforcement. It would be difficult to define an offence in this area without making it so narrow that it was easily evaded or soon overtaken by new technology, or so wide that it was unreasonable and unenforceable in practice."—[Official Report 13 March 1989; Vol. 149, c. 187.]
    The Government gave that as a reason why they could not legislate, and yet the Bill legislates without a definition. That approach is inconsistent.
    If the Bill attempted to define a computer, I appreciate that there would be a problem because it might not cover the next generation of computers. It would have to be continually updated to stay the course. However, it would be better to have a definition than none at all because otherwise the Bill could bring the law into disrepute by making too many actions criminal.
    Mr. Douglas Hogg: The hon. Gentleman has argued the case for defining the word "computer". I am sure that he will keep well in mind the fact that in paragraph 3·39 of the Law Commission's report precisely that point was considered, and the Commission recommended against defining that word.
    Mr. Cohen: I appreciate that, but how can the Minister make that point and justify the former Minister of State, Home Office, saying on 13 March that the Government could not legislate against electronic surveillance machines because they could not produce a definition. That is inconsistent. If they could not legislate for such machines because they could not define the word "computer" they should not legislate for hacking. If they can legislate against hacking because they do not need a definition, they should legislate against electronic surveillance. The Government cannot have it both ways.
    By omitting the definition, the Bill will not only apply to mainframe and personal computers and other computer technology, but will extend to a range of consumer electronics that currently have, or will have, programmable or computer-type functions. I am sure that the sponsor did not think that that was the case, but it could happen. In years to come, the Bill could apply to a washing machine, controlled by a chip, electronic car locks or programmable compact disc players, light switches, pocket calculators and watches. That is nonsense.
    Let us suppose that an hon. Member finds an electronic personal organiser in the street and presses a button to find out whose it is so that he or she can hand it back. He or she would fiddle with the on-off switch, and, under clause 1 of the Bill, could be imprisoned for six months. Let us
    1168
    suppose that someone gets a brand new Rolls-Royce, parks it in the street and a young, east end lad who is dead keen on cars—there are plenty in my area—goes out, touches it and sets off the computer. He will be committing an offence under the Bill.
    Mr. Colvin: Earlier the hon. Gentleman made great play about the question of intent. The intent must be there. The access may be unauthorised, but unless the hacker intends to get access to a computer system he or she will not be committing an offence.
    Mr. Cohen: I take that point. However, the hon. Member for Torridge and Devon, West earlier spoke about how judges will interpret the provision. I would not like to think how Judge Pickles would interpret a lad touching a lock. He might not do it in an attempt to open the car and gain entry, but he might touch off the computer and that could be interpreted as intentional.
    London travel cards contain conditions to the effect that they can be used only
    "by the person shown in the accompanying Photocard".
    Those cards cost a lost of money and, if the carrier of the card goes through computer ticket machines he or she will have to carry his photocard at all times. We are on to the ID debate. The House has never accepted that everybody must be immediately identifiable, but this Bill does so, by the back door, for people with travel cards. If carriers do not have their photocards with their season tickets, it could lead to six months in the nick for them. The Bill can apply to every-day facilities. Surely that was not the intention of the hon. Member for Romsey and Waterside.
    Even defining unauthorised access provides further problems. The Bill tries to do this in clause 18(5), which brings into play the employer-employee relationship. At present, someone might use an office typewriter to do a bit of personal typing, such as wedding invitations or matters relating to the local chess club tournament, and an employer would turn a blind eye to it. However, if it is done on a computer and the employee does not have authorised access, under the Bill he or she can be prosecuted and can get six months' imprisonment. That interferes with employer-employee relationships. It would be bad for the employer because the advice to employees would be to use the computer only if they had received specific authority from their employer.
    These may seem extreme examples, but that is not necessarily true. A fly-on-the-wall programme in the late 1970s followed the Thames Valley police in their work. At one stage, a constable said to the desk sergeant, "Sergeant, I cannot find anything in the book to charge him with." The sergeant answered, "Go and look in the bigger book." He meant the constable to find an offence to fit the facts. The Bill, drawn as wide as it is, could easily give a policeman who wants to arrest someone the chance to do that when a computer is involved. That is wrong. An offence under clause 1 would have almost universal application whenever any electronic system was switched on.
    The Bill is one-sided because it deals with private hackers, but computer misuse is much wider than that. The Government are one of the biggest, perhaps the biggest, computer misuser, yet they are not even touched on in the Bill. I tabled early-day motion 416 about the electoral register. The Government replied that they had no plans to let voters decide for themselves whether they wished their names and addresses to be sold, inform voters

    1169
    that this had been done, provide guidance on privacy issues to electoral registration officers about the disclosure of information on individuals or protect those at risk should their names and addresses be sold or disclosed—for example, women who had suffered violence from their male partners. That is one example of Government abuse not touched on by the Bill. Why should the Government be allowed to get away with this without let or hindrance and pick on a few private hackers? Why should the owners get away with it without having a duty of care with regard to privacy?
    The argument behind the Bill and the Law Commission's report is that we need special crimes concerning access to computers because computers are special and unauthorised access can cause damage. If computers are special, the owners of them should have special responsibilities. We have legislated to the effect that the owners of guns have to keep them in lockable, custom-built storage cupboards, yet computer misuse can also cause death and there is no duty on computer owners to maintain security.
    The Bill does nothing to enhance security. First and foremost, it should encourage all computer users to improve all aspects of computer security. The hon. Member for Romsey and Waterside would have done better to pick up the recommendations of the Younger committee in 1972 to criminalise electric surveillance and eavesdropping and to tighten up the Data Protection Act 1984 which is now regarded as one of the weakest of such measures in Europe.
    The Bill should not be restricted to hacking. There are three other basic ways in which computer misuse can be prevented. First, the basic security of data should be guaranteed; secondly, the procedures used should ensure that the reliability and integrity of computer operations remain intact and are properly tested; and, thirdly, privacy should be protected. Those three elements are absolutely crucial and are not addressed in the Bill.
    Mr. Ian Bruce: I know that the hon. Gentleman has listened carefully to virtually all the debate, but unfortunately he was not here when my hon. Friend the Member for Romsey and Waterside (Mr. Colvin) was introducing the Bill. He will find that many of the points he is raising were adequately covered by my hon. Friend. Perhaps he should read Hansard. I am sure that we would welcome him in the Committee if he wished to pursue those matters.
    Mr. Cohen: I did not miss all of the speech of the hon. Member for Romsey and Waterside. I apologise for missing the initial part of his speech, but I was here for the last part of it, and I heard much of what he had to say.
    The hon. Gentleman's intervention does not deflect from the argument that private hacking is only a small element of computer misuse. The Government data network is not even considered in the Bill. The Government have recently answered questions from me saying that they are extending their data network into other sectors. How can we discuss unauthorised access to data as defined under clause 18(5) of the Bill when the Government refuse to define their own internal authorisation procedures? Someone might break into the Government computer network and get done under the Bill, yet the Government refuse to define what is authorised and what is unauthorised.
    1170
    Probably the best and most well-known hackers are the security services. The Bill does not touch them. They have the freedom to hack at will and cause whatever damage results from that hacking. I have raised the matter on a number of occasions. I asked for a code of practice, and the Government refused. I suggested there should be independent oversight of the security services, such as the Data Protection Registrar. He is in place already. The Government should give him independent oversight over the security services if they start hacking and causing damage. But the Government will not do it. The security services represent much more hacking than a few private individuals, yet they are not recognised in the slightest in the Bill.
    Mr. Harry Barnes: Perhaps such measures are being introduced simply because there is concern about commercial practices as computer use has become overdeveloped in certain commercial sectors, instead of concern about the matters that my hon. Friend mentioned. One example was the Government's insistence on trying to develop the football ID card system which they still have in cold storage. Under such a system there would have been a computer terminal in the shed at Halifax Town and it would have been very tempting for some people to interfere with that, given the problems regarding football spectators. Therefore, the Government have to introduce increasingly draconian measures in an attempt to protect their position as they have done in regard to the poll tax legislation.
    Mr. Cohen: My hon. Friend is alsolutely right. The Bill has been drawn very narrowly, confining computer misuse to one group of misusers, and left out all the other groups. The duty of care has been left out altogether.
    The best way forward would have been to introduce legislation to enhance the three crucial elements that I mentioned: basic security, integrity and reliability of computer procedures, and privacy, which never gets a look in. There should be duties upon owners of computers. Damages and compensation could be awarded to people affected by computer misuse by the owners of computers or by the Government. A duty of care would require owners of computers and producers of software to produce software that had been tested because if they were taken to court and could prove that the system had been properly tested they would get off, but if it was discovered that it had not been tested and damage had occurred they would be fined, and therefore the available software would improve.
    Section 23 of the Data Protection Act should be extended to relate to all data, not just personal data, so that owners who did not take care to maintain the security of their data would have to pay compensation for any damage that occurred. The point made by the Data Protection Registrar about cattle in an unfenced field is right. In fact, it is more serious than that. Let us suppose, for example, that some hacker breaks into an aircraft control system and causes the aircraft to crash. The hacker would go to prison. But if those in charge of the aircraft control system had not taken care they should also be penalised for their slack procedures and should have to pay damages. That is not covered by the Bill.
    In summary, the Bill fails to address the three aspects of computer security that most concerns the public: basic security, reliability and privacy. The Bill should provide

    1171
    that computers will have a special part to play in our future. Computer owners who expect a profit must take special care to ensure that all three aspects of computer security are addressed. The Bill is myopic in looking at only one aspect.
    12.29 pm
    Mr. Edward Leigh: In a way I am relieved that the hon. Member for Kirkcaldy, (Dr. Moonie) is not in his place. To have one's arguments tested by a psychiatrist is bad enough but to have them tested by a computer-literate psychiatrist would give even the most robust Member the kind of nightmares that not even Freud could dream of.
    My hon. Friend the Member for Romsey and Waterside (Mr. Colvin) said that in the six weeks that he has been studying these matters closely, things have moved on. However, it seems that some things do not move on, because according to the hon. Member for Kirkcaldy, most hacking is due to sexual inadequacy.
    I welcome the Bill as a step forward. However, it is important that the arguments advanced by my hon. Friend the Member for Romsey and Waterside are tested, and that is what I shall seek to do by asking some questions. Friday debates are often dominated by enthusiasts. Although I did not agree with everything that the hon. Member for Leyton (Mr. Cohen) said, he asked many worthwhile questions that need to be answered by my hon. Friend the Minister for Industry.
    The Bill is similar to two Bills that we have discussed on Fridays in this Session. They were worthy Bills, but there were problems about enforceability and about whether in some aspects current common law and statute law is not sufficient to deal with the problem.
    In terms of clause 1 we seek an assurance from the Minister that the innocent hacker—if one can describe any hacker as innocent—will not be put in an invidious and impossible position.
    On clause 2 we want to be assured that existing law is not adequate to deal with the problem. I shall go through those problems and take up some points made in the press by commentators on these issues. The first comment is by Terence Wright who is a computer conferencing specialist. He makes a worthwhile comment when he says:
    "There is a wide cultural gulf between those who learned computing in 1961 and those who learned in childhood more recently."
    Is my hon. Friend the Member for Torridge and Devon, West (Miss Nicholson) able to distinguish hitting keys 1980 style from hacking? Can the courts? Will they convict the innocent because they did not do what the manuals said they should do?
    My hon. Friend the Member for Romsey and Waterside assures us that under clause 1 hacking must be deliberate, but we need reassurances from the Minister about that. Mr. Wright also says:
    "The great Prestel 'hack', which is so often cited, was a case of a wide-open door, and not of security being broken. There was no security and there should have been."
    I hope that the Bill will become an Act, but no one would want it to absolve people in the computer industry from being responsible for closing doors. That is their responsibility.
    1172
    We heard much in the debate about bulletin boards. Terence Wright said at some length that we do not want to ban bulletin boards in the same way as in the past people wanted to ban books. Hon. Members have reassured us about that, but perhaps the Minister may also wish to speak about it.
    The substantial questions about the Bill relate to clause 2 and whether what it seeks to ban is not already covered by statute law. A person who steals money by using a computer can surely be charged under the Theft Acts of 1968 and 1978. In the case of a person who has access to a database for which charges are made the same Acts can apply. Anyone who maliciously or recklessly deletes or contaminates computer files should fall foul of the Criminal Damage Act 1971.
    Mr. Douglas Hogg: No.
    Mr. Leigh: My hon. Friend the Minister says no, but perhaps he will deal with the matter more fully when he makes his speech because the matter has been raised in the press and should be answered by the Minister.
    Anyone who manufactures a magnetic strip card or a password-bearing disk to access a computer could be charged under the Forgery and Counterfeiting Act 1981. Perhaps the Minister will also deal with that. There has been much sensational publicity about access to secrets. Will the Minister assure us that if there is such access the Official Secrets Acts are not sufficient to deal with the problem?
    I hope that the Minister will deal with the problem of enforcement. We are reminded that out of 150,000 police officers in England and Wales only five are mainly concerned with computer crime. We have not gone into that in detail. Fewer than 100 have received even the minimum four weeks basic training and the Serious Fraud Office has one computer-knowledgeable official. I read that in an article in The Guardian written by Hugo Cornwall but I do not know whether it is correct. If it is, it is alarming and must throw doubt on whether the provisions of the Bill will be enforceable.
    Mr. Colvin: My hon. Friend raises an important issue. I have spoken to the police and I have been assured that the courses at Bramshill police college and at Hendon police school include specific courses on computerisation and the issues that are addressed in the Bill. There is also provision for the police to call in expert guidance and assistance, notably from British Telecom which provides the means for networks to be established. My hon. Friend mentioned Hugo Cornwall. Mr. Cornwall has done the country a service by drawing attention to the whole ethos of hacking. He has produced a new edition of "The Hacker's Handbook". If the Bill becomes law he will have to produce yet another edition to take on board the issues addressed in the Bill, or he might find himself straying perilously near to incitement.
    Mr. Leigh: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. It is important that we tease out these issues. The Minister for Industry is a former Home Office Minister. I see that he is consulting his civil servants or, more likely, he is giving them instructions. [Interruption.] It appears that he is talking about his lunch. My hon. Friend the Member for Romsey and Waterside raises an important matter and we need to have some answers about what is going on in the

    1173
    police force. Does it have sufficient resources to deal with this serious problem? The hon. Member for Leyton quoted Alistair Kelman. The quote intrigued me. He said:
    "The only gap in the law is when a hacker gains access to a computer and just has a look around…But existing laws on fraud, theft and criminal damage cover cases where financial loss or international damage occurs."
    Was the hon. Member for Leyton suggesting that if someone intentionally has a look around he should not be liable for criminal prosecution? I see that the hon. Gentleman is nodding. "Having a look around" at a computer can cause immense damage and has done so. My hon. Friends the Members for Romsey and Waterside, for Torridge and Devon, West and for Keighley (Mr. Waller) all dealt with the damage that that is doing to industry.
    Mr. Cohen: I share the view expressed in the press release issued by the Data Protection Registrar, that
    "if damage is caused inadvertently or not, then someone should be liable".
    But if no damage is caused by someone who just enters a system to just look around it, my view is that such action should not be criminalised.
    Mr. Leigh: I am glad that the hon. Gentleman amplified his earlier comment, and perhaps my Friend the Minister will take up that point. It is a principle of English criminal law that action must be intentional. Whether an action that is found to be intentional but which causes no damage—though that may be difficult to quantify—can be deemed criminal is an interesting question of jurisprudence which I am sure that my hon. Friend the Minister will want to pursue. A more moderate and sensible comment was made by Chris Pounder, head of the Hoskyns information protection and management division, who agrees that unauthorised access to a computer should not automatically be a crime. He believes that a criminal law could be oppressive, because it would apply only to instances where no theft took place and no intentional damage was done. He says:
    "Are we really saying that members of staff who make unauthorised use of a firm's personal computer to produce their own CV or to every perpetrator of a childish prank that their misdemeanour is worthy of a criminal record they will keep for the rest of life?
    One may not agree with that view, but it is one worth consideration by my hon. Friend the Minister.
    Mr. Arbuthnot: The answer to the question raised in the quote given my hon. Friend is clearly no. The Law Commission says that if one has authorised access to a computer but uses it for unauthorised purposes, one will not be caught by the Bill.
    Mr Leigh: I am grateful to my hon. Friend, and I am sure that his point will be emphasised by the Minister.
    All hon. Members surely agree that there has been far too much romanticising about hackers. Theirs is not a romantic activity. Tony Fainberg writes that hackers are often not very skilled operators and because that is so, they can cause much damage.
    He refers to a particularly worrying case:
    "The person who put this program together appears to lack fundamental insight into some algorithms, data structures and network propagation. A true expert could have produced a far more virulent piece of electronic vandalism".
    Hacking damages industry, but we should also cut away some of the sensationalism that it has attracted. A headline on 14 May in The Observer read:
    "Hackers 'teach KGB' to break data secrets'.
    1174
    Although the problem of hacking is serious, the Bill can address it. Perhaps amendments may need to be made in Committee, but I congratulate my hon. Friend .11e Member for Romsey and Waterside on presenting it, and I wish the Bill speedy progress to the statute book.
    12.41 pm
    Mr. Michael Grylls: The debate has been very refreshing for two reasons. There has been almost total agreement among right hon. and hon. Members in all parts of the House about the seriousness of the problem of computer abuse, and the debate is concerned with the problems of a modern industry—an industry of the present and of the future. On so many occasions during my time in the House we have spent far too long debating industries of the past.
    I must declare a personal interest as an adviser to the Digital Equipment Company for some time. Therefore, I am aware of the deep concern felt by that company and by the computer industry generally about the growing problem of computer abuse.
    Information technology, which is most welcome, is used throughout the whole of British industry and commerce. Electronic mail and the other electronic devices used in today's paperless office, which I welcome, replace conventional paperwork by electronic communication. As that has grown, so, too, has the need for new regulations, to bring within the criminal law, and thus eliminate, practices that can damage industry.
    Whole new industries depend on computers. My hon. Friend the Member for Torridge and Devon, West (Miss Nicholson) spoke of the damage that can be done by illicit access to health records. She made several good points about the harm that could be caused by people with mal-intent accessing health record systems. I greatly welcome the initiative of my hon. Friend the Member for Romsey and Waterside (Mr. Colvin) in presenting his Bill.
    We should nail once and for all all the criticism that is made about introducing such legislation in the form of a private Member's Bill rather than of a Government Bill. Private Members are fully entitled to legislate and I welcome the fact that my hon. Friend the Member for Romsey and Waterside has brought forward a Bill that is so badly needed. It is a waste of time to carp at the Government for not bringing in such a Bill. We would be better employed in congratulating my hon. Friend on the work that he has done and the care and attention to detail with which he has brought the Bill to the House. I am confident that under his guidance, if the House gives the Bill a Second Reading today, it will go through Committee stage healthily, and will become law very soon. I think that we will be grateful to him if that happens.
    The proper functioning of the computerisation of personal records, whether medical, data information or whatever, in business and industry is crucial. There is a safety angle as well. Nowadays, many of our great industries, such as steel or the chemical industry and most manufacturing industries involve some computer control and programming. They have to do so to be able to compete in the world. It is a horrific thought that people might have illegal access or fool around with computers. I say, with great respect, to the hon. Member for Leyton (Mr. Cohen) that even if people fool around but do not have criminal or bad intent, they can cause damage and one has to be careful.

    1175
    It is crucial that the computer programs on which industries depend have proper integrity. As more and more electronics come into British industry, we have to be able to protect them, and to provide a law to do so. If we do not, we will damage competitiveness and could cause loss of life or injury to people working in industry if computer systems break down or go wrong.
    Other hon. Members have mentioned the cost of illegal entry to computer systems, and that can be high, but we must also remember that there can be damage, and it can cause loss of life or injury.
    I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough and Horncastle (Mr. Leigh) that industry has a prime responsibility to ensure that systems are secure. In exactly the same way as perimeter fences, doors and windows should be secure, it is crucial to ensure that computer systems are secure. However it is right that the Government should bring forward legislation, although a responsibility remains with owners and operators of computer systems to ensure proper security.
    As anyone who has ever suffered from a burglary knows, however hard one tries to make something secure, occasionally people break in, and great damage can result. Therefore, it is necessary to introduce a law into this area, and if our industries are to prosper in the computer and electronic age it is right that they should have proper protection.
    I hope that the House will give this well-thought-out Bill a Second Reading to enable it to go to Committee, and I wish it godspeed through the processes of the House. I hope that it will become law this year, and very soon.
    12.47 pm
    Mr. Ian Bruce: I agree wholeheartedly with my hon. Friend the Member for Surrey, North-West (Mr. Grylls) about the necessity for the Bill. Like many hon. Members on both sides of the House, particularly on the Conservative Benches, I do not like legislation for the sake of legislation. When I was first approached about the question of computer misuse and hacking, I thought that the law must surely be adequate. I believe that my hon. Friend the Member for Romsey and Waterside (Mr. Colvin) was not an enthusiast for legislation on computers and hacking, but he was persuaded by the strength of the argument and the concern felt by many companies.
    I help to represent the views of members of the Telecommunications Managers Association in this place, and they are extremely concerned to protect their companies from unauthorised outside access to telecommunications networks. That concern has been reflected in committees of the House—the parliamentary information technology committee and the parliamentary and scientific committee.
    BP is a large employer in my constituency. When it invited me to lunch I thought that we would be talking about drilling at Wytch Farm but it turned out that the company was concerned about computer misuse and hacking and large international companies' problems in seeking to protect their business from such activities. Only last week I went around one of Sainsbury's hi-tech stores. All the refrigerators at that store are controlled by computer, and for purposes of out-of-hours maintenance, those computers are accessible to maintenance staff via a
    1176
    computer terminal. They were worried that someone dialling into the system and gaining unauthorised access could switch off all the refrigerators.
    We must kick into touch the romantic view of hacking. The crucial difference between hacking and other types of damage is that the law does not cover the mechanism whereby access to the information is gained. If a doctor has a row of filing cabinets in his surgery, he can lock them, and although it is probably not an offence to look at the files, it is certainly an offence to break a window or a lock or to force entry to the premises or cabinet to look at the data. The Bill would provide that if one broke an electronic lock, one would be breaking the law as surely as one would by breaking a physical lock. I disagree with my hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough and Horncastle (Mr. Leigh) and the hon. Member for Leyton (Mr. Cohen) who feel that the matter is already adequately covered and that we do not need additional legislation.
    When I read the Law Commission's report, I was worried that someone who dialled the wrong number when trying to log on to another computer would be caught by the Bill. But clause 1(1)(c) makes it clear that to commit an offence one must intend to gain unauthorised access. The point is well covered in this extremely well-drafted Bill, which has my full support.
    If one gets a crank telephone call or a hacking telephone call it is often very difficult to trace the caller. I understand from my hon. Friend the Member for Romsey and Waterside that it is already open to British Telecom and Mercury to give the information that is necessary to trace the perpetrators of such crimes. Perhaps we should consider BT making available special telephone numbers so that all those who dial the numbers can be logged. The relevant records are already there, because when one dials a number, BT or Mercury records the call and the charge. But the link between the caller's records, which are already held on computer, and the number itself is more difficult to establish. Such a system would help not only in solving the problem of computer hacking but in dealing with crank calls, threatening calls, and sexual nuisance calls.
    I used to work for Sinclair, and I am well aware that companies such as Sinclair, Amstrad and IBM have brought down the prices of computers, giving people easy access to them. Those who believe that it is their God-given right to have access to other people's computers do not need to be put out of business altogether. All that groups of hackers need to do is to set up tests for each other on their computers and say, "You are authorised to try to break into my system." They could create puzzles for each other, similar to crossword puzzles. That would be a harmless enough hobby.
    We spent three months getting all the data into the first computer that the recruitment company for which I worked obtained. We did not have access to outside telephone lines, but a computer misfunction caused the data to crash. To find, after three months of hard labour, working long hours and getting everyone involved, that it is impossible to get access to computer data because of a virus can lead to an almost suicidal frame of mind.
    The effect of the Bill will be similar to what happened after the law on seat belts was introduced. Few people have been prosecuted under that legislation. The vast majority of people are law abiding; they have observed that law. I believe, therefore, that the hackers, and others,

    1177
    will decide to play fair by the law and desist from what they are doing. It is a timely and sensible measure which I fully support.
    12.55 pm
    Mr. James Arbuthnot: An overriding concern has already been mentioned to you, Madam Deputy Speaker—the Minister's lunch. I shall therefore be as brief as possible.
    I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Romsey and Waterside (Mr. Colvin) on his good fortune in doing so well in the ballot and on choosing to introduce this Bill. One should not believe everything that one reads in the newspapers, but I have read an article which suggests that at first my hon. Friend was disinclined to concentrate on this Bill but that he changed his mind when the AIDS diskette was disseminated throughout the country.
    Mr. Colvin: Another issue tipped the balance in favour of the Bill. A staggering amount of damage is being caused by computer misuse to UK Limited. I mentioned that it amounts to probably £400 million a year, but perhaps as much as £2 billion a year of damage is being caused to our computer systems. I did not believe that the nation could wait for another year before a Government Bill was introduced; action was needed straight away.
    Mr. Arbuthnot: I agree entirely with my hon. Friend. He is quite right.
    My hon. Friend said that he believed that the Bill would make the sending of the AIDS diskette a criminal offence. As a matter of purely technical detail, I doubt whether the Bill would cover the sending of that diskette. I am not sure under which clause it would be caught. If my hon. Friend suggests that it would be caught under clause 4, I refer him to its wording, which is that a person is guilty of an offence if
    "he does any act which causes an unauthorised modification of the contents of any computer's memory".
    The writing of a computer program does not cause modification of the contents of a computer's memory. The sending of a diskette through the post to anyone does not cause modification of a computer's memory. What causes the modification is the user of the computer putting the diskette into the computer, switching it on and trying to access that diskette. The wording of the clause ought to be examined to ensure that it catches the kind of virus that was produced by the AIDS diskette.
    The hon. Member for Kirkcaldy (Dr. Moonie) referred to the sexual inadequacies of hackers. I have seen an article in DEC News that refers, interestingly, to the personality profile of hackers. It says that hackers
    "may well he unemployed because they spend all night hacking, and lose their job because of poor performance or bad time-keeping, or they may have been sacked for hacking whilst at work. So despite being very intelligent, they find it difficult to hold down a job, and consequently the are often poor. The next stage in the downward spiral is that they find it difficult to reconcile being poor with the fact that they have a tremendous amount of knowledge about computing. This contradiction is usually rationalised in one of two ways. They either go in for fraud, or become 'security consultants' who sell their ability to safeguard your computer system from other hackers, usually after breaking into it, which is little short of extortion."
    That is an interesting and almost certainly accurate profile of the convinced hacker rather than the juvenile.
    Various arguments have been raised against the Bill. One of them, which was not ventilated at length today,
    1178
    relates to trespass. While hacking may be trespass, trespass on to land is not regarded in this country as criminal per se. The argument runs that if that is so, why should entry into a computer be considered criminal?
    We have already heard some of the answers to that question. Innocent hackers can cause amazing damage because they might not know what they are doing. In In that sense, an innocent hacker may be like a bull in a china shop. However, there is a more general problem. If a company is aware that its computers have been attacked, it suffers a loss of confidentiality. The company cannot be sure that its computer processes will work in future and that its transactions will produce the intended results. Therefore, the company will have to reorganise all its computer data bases and that will mean that the computers will not be available to the company. If a company's activities are time-sensitive, they may be marginalised and the company might be forced out of business. The latter is an exceptionally serious result of the apparently harmless activity of hacking.
    A leader in The Times recently stated:
    "The Commission's proposals will make it plain that hacking is always serious, even if the intention is mere mischief—that the silly game is finally over."
    The issue is whether criminal law should be available for trespass into computer systems. We must remember that trespass is criminal in certain circumstances either where statute makes it so or where there is wilful and malicious damage. For example, statute law makes trespass criminal where trespass occurs on certain property and in particular on British Rail property for which fines are rightly imposed. Similarly, it is a crime to trespass on certain property if no damage is done, but firearms are being carried or if someone trespasses in pursuit of gain. Therefore, there are precedents for trespass being criminal and it is simply a matter of statute making such trespass criminal. I believe that computers should be the kind of property on which to trespass would be criminal, because of the damage that such trespass can cause.
    It has been suggested that if we clean the hackers off the computing networks, we will simply allow computer companies to sell insecure systems. To a certain extent that is true. If we solve the problem of burglars, we might allow people to leave their doors unlocked at night. That might be beneficial for this country. I share the astonishment expressed by my hon. Friend the Member for Corby (Mr. Powell) at the argument that hackers should be thanked for exposing security weaknesses. My hon. Friend expanded that to burglary and I will expand it to mugging. Perhaps we should thank muggers for exposing our physical weaknesses in being unable to stand up to them. That is an extraordinary idea which we should reject completely.
    It is true that some forms of computer security should be improved and a great deal can be done. A study of 20 European companies carried out by Coopers and Lybrand showed that 19 had inadequate standards of security which were a real threat to the economic development of those companies. The report said:
    "The catastrophic effects of poor security are likely to discourage organisations from becoming any more dependent on their network systems."
    That suggests that there may be a level of complexity in our society beyond which, because of safety interests, we may be frightened to go. If hacking increases our fears,

    1179
    there will be damage to the cohesion and organisation of our society. That is a perfectly good and sufficient justification for the Bill.
    1.4 pm
    The Minister of Industry (Mr. Douglas Hogg): This has been an unusually interesting debate, not least because it appears to have attracted almost unanimous support for the Bill. It may help the House if I outline the Government's position on the Bill.
    I begin, as have other hon. Members, by paying tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Romsey and Waterside (Mr. Colvin) for having brought forward this Bill and, perhaps more to the point, for having mastered the complexities of the subject and for the persuasive and lucid way in which he explained the Bill and responded to a range of specific questions. In short, the House is indebted to my hon. Friend.
    The House is indebted also to my hon. Friend the Member for Torridge and Devon, West (Miss Nicholson). She was kind enough to mention to me that, unfortunately, she has a pressing constituency engagement. She has done more than any other hon. Member to draw attention to the problem of computer misuse. Last April she brought forward a Bill that was later withdrawn, and she has been extremely active in drawing Ministers' attention to the relevant problems. It is right that the Law Commission report should have paid special tribute to my hon. Friend for her special work.
    My hon. Friend the Member for Romsey and Waterside instanced the wide range of uses to which computers are put. For example, he said that his name appears on 102 computers. He modestly suggested that the same was true of other hon. Members, but I rather hope that it was particular to him.
    Perhaps it is desirable to remind hon. Members that computers are not only a sophisticated way of collating and storing information. Even more important, they have operational purposes, and they are fully defined in the Law Commission's report. Good examples can be found at paragraph 1.15, where hon. Members who are interested in the subject will see a range of operational purposes. They include
    "world-wide inter-bank fund transfer systems…air traffic control systems, and hospital systems for calculating drug dosages"
    and many others. We are not discussing exclusively the storage and collation of information; we are also discussing the use of computers as an operational tool. That emphasises why computer misuse can be serious.
    My hon. Friend the Member for Romsey and Waterside said that, once a system is entered, the owner must spend substantial sums of money and utilise much manpower in putting the system back into good order. However, other consequences can flow. Those who have access to or try to achieve access to air traffic control systems could be putting lives at risk. Those who achieve access to hospital computer records which provide for the delivery of drug dosages could have the same effect.
    Hon. Members may have noted the specific case referred to at paragraph 1.16 of the Law Commission report. A factory worker was nearly killed because somebody had misprogramed the program that caused robotic machines to operate and, in this case, to
    1180
    malfunction. The consequences of computer misuse are therefore capable of being serious and are not limited only to financial issues; they can, in certain circumstances, threaten lives and property.
    The Bill closely reflects the contents of the Law Commission's report that was published in October 1989, differing from its recommendations in only minor respects. The hon. Member for Leyton (Mr. Cohen) complained that the Law Commission had not annexed the draft Bill to the report and went on to say that we do not know its intentions. I do not agree with that conclusion. Anybody who reads the Law Commission's report, and who carefully studies the contents of page 35, will have the clearest possible view of what the Law Commission had in mind and in detail.
    The Law Commission considered the vital question whether there are important gaps in the existing law in the context of computer crime. My hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough and Horncastle (Mr. Leigh) touched on that, and I shall refer to his points later. In broad substance, the Law Commission concluded that there are three specific gaps, and they are addressed by the Bill. However, it also stated that most of the crimes involving computer misuse are covered by the existing law. To make an obvious point, the use of a computer to steal is, in most circumstances, covered by the law of theft. Computer misuse resulting in death or injury is, of course, covered by existing criminal law if those consequences were intended or the actions were done recklessly and the results were a consequence of that intention or recklessness. Therefore, in most respects—although not in all—the existing law covers the mischief to which the Bill is directed. It does not cover the entirety of the mischief, which is why the Bill is so important.
    It might be helpful to the House if I turned now to the detail of the Bill and to some of the purposes that it is designed to achieve. Clause 1, with which I can deal briefly because my hon. Friend the Member for Romsey and Waterside has explained it so very well already, provides for the offence of unauthorised access to a computer. Standing alone, that offence is not covered by the existing law. If the House will forgive me, I shall identify the prohibited act or the actus reus and the intent of the mens rea, as lawyers say. The prohibited act is that of accessing a computer to perform a function without authority. To establish an offence, there must be the act of causing a computer to function and that activity must be unauthorised. The prosecution must establish both elements before a conviction can be obtained.
    On the issue of mental intent, it is necessary to establish both the intention of securing access and the knowledge that the authority for that act is not possessed. My hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough and Horncastle expressed the anxiety that innocent folk might be caught. I do not believe that they would. A specific intent is required—the intent to secure unauthorised access. If the prosecution cannot establish that mental intent, it will fail.
    A broader question was raised by the hon. Member for Leyton. It was answered in an eloquent intervention by my hon. Friend the Member for Wanstead and Woodford (Mr. Arbuthnot). It is the question of the justificaton and intellectual underpinning of the clause 1 offence. My hon. Friend the Member for Romsey and Waterside said—and I agree—that we are not dealing primarily with the protection of confidential information. That may be a perfectly legitimate purpose, but it is not the prime

    1181
    justification for the Bill. The prime justification for clause 1 is to reassure people who have computers about the integrity of their system. I believe that that is of fundamental importance.
    As I have already said, computers are used for a multiplicity of purposes both operational and for the collating and storing of information. That purpose will continue. People will expand the range of computers and their functions. The integrity of systems needs protection to the extent that the law can provide.
    The hon. Member for Leyton characterised the clause 1 offence as directed at those who simply have a look around. In many circumstances, the fact that someone has a look around places on the owner the requirement to remedy any defects caused, put in place new software, check out the system and spend large sums of money. Once someone has had a look around the system, it has been broken into and its integrity put at risk. That activity is not right and the computer owner has every reason to complain. The clause is directed against such a threat.
    My hon. Friend the Member for Wanstead and Woodford drew a distinction between the law of trespass and the law of trespass with grave effect which was apt.
    Trepass is not a criminal offence because usually it does not give rise to damage. However, trespass in the case of computers gives rise to damage because the owner of the system is put under an obligation to carry out remedial works. There is a distinction in principle, and I find what my hon. Friend said entirely persuasive.
    Clauses 2 and 3 are interrelated. Clause 2 deals with the offence of unauthorised access with intent to commit a serious crime. There is not so much a gap in the law as a need to strengthen it. Clauses 2 and 3 reflect the particular nature of computer misuse and the speed with which crimes involving computers can be carried out. The final act in a fraud carried out using computers may take only the time necessary to make a telephone call. However, it is likely that a good deal of preparatory work has been carried out prior to that event—for example, searching for passwords or exploring the security arrangements of a bank's computer.
    The offence created will enable the police to catch offenders at the preparatory stage rather than when they have carried out the fraud and spirited away the profits into a foreign bank account. It would also catch offenders who committed unauthorised access to prepare for a crime—for example, blackmail, or even murder. My hon. Friend for Gainsborough and Horncastle asked an important question about whether that is covered by existing law. That question represents one of considerable difficulty, but my opinion coincides with what appears in the Law Commission's report. In substance, many of the acts covered in clauses 2 and 3 constitute attempts in law, because we are dealing with preparatory acts. The problem is that to constitute the offence of an attempt in law the acts complained of must be sufficiently proximate to the commission of the offence.
    In the case I instanced of, for example, gaining access to a bank account, a range of safeguards—passwords and security systems—will be present. The question is whether the computer hacker, who is trying out those passwords to get access, is committing the offence of attempt or committing some other criminal offence. The Law Commission examined this point and came to the conclusion that the process of trying out the passwords would not constitute the offence of attempt because it was
    1182
    not sufficiently proximate to the ultimate offence. I share that view. But, the Law Commission also concluded that those particular acts should constitute an offence because the length of time between those preparatory acts and the final offence can be extremely brief, having regard to the nature of computer use. I hope that my hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough and Horncastle will appreciate that there is a need for the type of offences that are encapsulated in clauses 2 and 3.
    My hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough and Horncastle also pressed me closely about clause 4, which is designed to close the gap the Law Commission identified in matters relating to damage done to intangible property. Thus, if I may give a crude example, I may be prosecuted for smashing an axe through a computer since I have caused damage to physical property. It is by no means certain, however, that I could be prosecuted for introducing a virus into a machine that destroyed many thousands of hours of work stored on data in that machine. That is because it is by no means certain that damage of a non-physical kind is damage for the purposes of the Criminal Damage Act 1971. That is a lacuna because damage to data and damage to the software is not of itself necessarily damage within the malicious damage legislation. For that reason, the Law Commission thought it necessary to recommend the change now contained in the Bill. I agree with that recommendation.
    My hon. Friend the Member for Wanstead and Woodford also raised an extremely interesting and nice point relating to the AIDS diskette. He asked whether a person who sends a diskette, received by another and put by that other into a machine, is causing damage for the purposes of clause 4. The answer is yes. The Law Commission intended that effect, and I am glad that my hon. Friend the Member for Romney and Waterside has achieved it in the Bill. If my hon. Friend the Member for Wanstead and Woodford would care to look at clause 18(6), he will find that my hon. Frined the Member for Romsey and Waterside has provided that any act
    "which contributes towards causing…a modification shall he regarded as causing it."
    The truth is that there are a number of causes, the sending of the diskette being one and the act of the person feeding it into a machine being another. Any one of those causes is a cause for the purposes of clause 4.
    My hon. Friend the Member for Romsey and Waterside has gone into considerable detail about extending jurisdiction to acts committed outside the normal jurisdiction of the courts of England, Wales and Scotland. His approach to the matter is entirely right.
    I intend to sit down at about 1.30 pm. Therefore, I shall concentrate only on one or two other criticisms that have been raised.
    Considerable concern has been expressed by a number of hon. Members, most notably by my hon. Friends the Members for Corby (Mr. Powell) and for Torridge and Devon, West about the enforceability of the legislation. They focus on two issues. The first is whether the police require enhanced powers of search to enforce the law, particularly under clause 1.
    The second, and quite different, issue is whether the provisions of section 69(1), of PACE—to use the jargon—will exclude statements produced by a computer that are relevant, credible and probative. That point was considered in detail by the Law Commission. I refer hon. Members to paragraphs 4.8 and 4.9 of its report. The Law

    1183
    Commission concluded that the provisions of PACE did not have the effect I have just described. It concluded that, in most respects, the provisions of section 69(1) would not prevent the admissibility of relevant and probative evidence.
    However, the argument goes a little further. The PACE provisions are of general application and have not as yet been fully tested. I urge the House to be slow about changing provisions that have not been fully tested and may well not have the effect suggested by those who are concerned about them. There will be other opportunities in subsequent Sessions, perhaps in a Criminal Justice Bill, to fill any gaps that may subsequently appear. I do not think that there is a weakness, but if there is we can put it right when it becomes apparent.
    Whether we should extend police powers is a slightly different matter. In broad terms I have some sympathy with the hon. Member for Leyton, who is reluctant for police powers to be extended, as am I. The Law Commission considered this matter quite carefully in its report, and its arguments are concisely summarised in paragraphs 2.20 and 2.21.
    The House will appreciate that we are concerned only with clause 1 because clause 2 gives rise to arrestable offences within the definition of PACE and, therefore, the ordinary principles applied by PACE apply to clause 2 offences. The House will note that there are already considerable investigative powers available to the police that touch on clause 1 offences. They are summarised in the two paragraphs to which I referred.
    Hon. Members must consider two issues, one of principle and one of tactics. I hope that the House will forgive me for saying that private Members' legislation is a fragile vessel, and if we start taking action that many people find unacceptable we could lose the Bill. There is no doubt that if we were to extend the police powers to search in the context of clause 1 we could arouse much antagonism to the Bill that would not otherwise be aroused. I would be sorry if that happened.
    On the issue of principle, I would not wish to extend police powers unless I was persuaded that it was wholly necessary to do so. The Law Commission took that view, and I agree with it. I would not wish the law to be extended unless there was compelling evidence of need.
    I shall make two final points. My hon. Friend the Member for Corby raised a most interesting point regarding international co-operation. To some extent, the matter will be addressed by the Criminal Justice (International Co-operation) Bill, which is wending its way through the other place and is relevant to precisely the
    1184
    issue that my hon. Friend has raised. So too are the provisions in the Bill regarding jurisdiction in respect of offences committed outside what is normally the jurisdiction of the courts.
    The hon. Member for Leyton argued at some length that we should define the word "computer" in the Bill. To repeat what I said in my intervention in his speech, that point was carefully considered by the Law Commission in pragraph 3.39 of its report. The considered view of the Law Commission, backed, as I understand it, by the majority of consultees on the matter, is that it would be an error to define "computer". I am entirely persuaded by what my hon. Friend the Member for Romsey and Waterside said on the matter.
    I know that the House wishes to proceed to another measure, so I shall conclude my remarks. I hope that the Bill will receive a Second Reading and that subsequently it will be enacted.
    Mr. Colvin: With the permission of the House, I shall detain it for just another 60 seconds to congratulate hon. Members on the constructive way in which they participated in the debate. I am aware that the hon. Member for Moray (Mrs. Ewing) is about to bring forward her measure to abolish warrant sales in Scotland, so I shall be brief.
    The manner in which hon. Members have given way to me during this four-hour debate has enabled most questions to be answered and my hon. Friend the Minister of State has answered most of those that remained.
    I have been checking my notes, and two specific questions asked by the hon. Member for Kirkcaldy (Dr. Moonie) during the debate still require answers. The first, on clause 11, related to Scottish citizenship. My answer is simply that if the Scottish court has the jurisdiction to try a case under the legislation, under Scottish law the nationality of the accused person is immaterial, and therefore there is no need to cover that explicitly in the Bill. He also raised a question under clause 12 about controls over access to computer systems by the police in the exercise of their duties. Clause 4 is intended only to protect existing statutory or common law rights. There is no intention of giving the police or anyone else a general licence to hack. If the police seize a computer under a search warrant, they must be allowed to access it in order to read the files.
    I thought that the House should know the answer to those questions as it might save time in Committee.
    Question put and agreed to.
    Bill accordingly read a Second time, and committed to a Standing Committee pursuant to Standing Order No. 61 (Committal of Bills).

    Abolition of Warrant Sales (Scotland) Bill
    Order for Second Reading read.
    1.32 pm
    Mrs. Margaret Ewing: I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
    Before turning to the main elements of the argument I wish to propound in support of the Bill, I should like to pay tribute to my sponsors for their support throughout the preparation of the Bill, and in particular to those who have assisted me in drafting the Bill. I am sure that the Under-Secretary of State, the hon. Member for Edinburgh, West (Lord James Douglas-Hamilton), will appreciate that although it is a simple Bill, the schedule was very complicated to draw up and a great deal of effort has gone into it.
    I should also like to mention my co-sponsor, the hon. Member for Dunfermline, West (Mr. Douglas) who cannot be with us today because his father-in-law died late on Wednesday evening. I am sure that everyone present will join me in sending sympathy to the family in their bereavement.
    We approach the Bill from two stances, particularly the principled stance which I feel is the key element to it. Many hon. Members will remember the late Jimmy Dempsey, who was the Member for Coatbridge and Airdrie, and they will recall the substantial campaign that he mounted over many years to abolish warrant sales in Scotland. More recently the hon. Member for Falkirk, West (Mr. Canavan) has continued that campaign.
    There is little doubt that the efforts made by those two hon. Members brought about the Debtors (Scotland) Act 1987, which substantially reduced the number of articles that can be poinded and sold for the purpose of a warrant sale. We all know from schedule 5 to that Act that the exemptions have been substantially increased. That has been welcomed by those of us who have watched the history of warrant sales in Scotland.
    However, the basic principle remains that the threat of warrant sales is barbaric and a relic of a bygone age. They no longer have a place in society in the late 20th century and certainly have no place in the 21st century. We must have reached the stage when we can remove the idea of a symbolic gun at someone's head to enforce the payment of debts.
    Invariably it is the poorest in society who are most affected by warrant sales. They have no alternative to which they can turn when this form of moral blackmail occurs. They do not have rich relatives or savings in the bank. They live on meagre incomes and struggle to keep the family together and their heads above water. The Scottish Law Commission says that warrant sales are a compensator for debt collection. In 1988 there were 6,173 warrants to sell, but only 714 reports of sales taking place. That information was given in the debate in the House on 10 July 1989 when we debated the Scottish courts administration. There is no doubt about the people against whom warrant sales are directed.
    Page 5 of the Scottish Law Commission memorandum No. 48 says that the research shows that the majority of debtors belong to the lowest income groups. Many are unemployed or intermittently employed, depending for their sustenance on social security or intermittent earnings of small amounts. They live on the margins of the statutory level of subsistence, have no savings and their
    1186
    only property consists of small household goods of minimal value. Under the threat of the use of warrant sales such debtors are induced to make a promise of payment instalments which they are unable to maintain because the level of each instalment is unreasonably high.
    Alongside that there is the sheer humiliation to which the families are subjected. There are psychological effects, especially on the children, and poinding draws attention to the indebtedness of the family. The neighbours and everybody else knows. That is humiliating and children have to go to the local school to face the reality of what has been done to their families. On pure grounds of principle, we should remove from the Scottish legal system this humiliating and barbaric blackmail which affects the poorest and weakest sections of our society.
    I shall now deal with the element of inefficiency in warrant sales. The Scottish Office research paper on the characteristics of warrant sales is a fairly elderly document. It goes back to 1980 and took some 10 years of research. It emphasises the need for further work in this sphere and clearly shows that the sales in themselves were inefficient. The document showed that only 3 per cent. of warrant sales recouped the total debt, and that in 97 per cent. of cases the debtor continued to owe money. Virtually the same was true in commercial sales where only 16 per cent. of the total debt was recouped through warrant sales, with 84 per cent. still ending up owing substantial amounts. Therefore, warrant sales are inefficient as well as being unprincipled.
    My proposals to abolish warrant sales are made against the background of the implementation of the poll tax in Scotland. All right hon. and hon. Members know that that tax is abhorred by the Scots, who delivered a clear verdict on it in the 1987 general election, when no fewer than 11 Conservative Members lost their seats and a good Few others held on only by the skin of their teeth.
    There are more than 500,000 non-payers of poll tax in Scotland. Some of them are making a political point, but others have no alternative, because they are too poor to pay. The Government speak of uprated social security benefits to take account of the 20 per cent. contribution that many poll tax payers must make. The reality is rather different. This morning, I spoke to a gentleman who lives in a hostel in the central belt of Scotland. He pointed out that his income support has not increased by 20 per cent. to meet his poll tax liability. I remind the Minister that when social security benefits were uprated nationally last year, no particular allowance was made for Scottish claimants who have to meet the additional burden of poll tax.
    Although 500,000 people in Scotland are not paying poll tax, a parliamentary answer given to my hon. Friend the Member for Banff and Buchan (Mr. Salmond) reveals that at 1 January, 193 sheriff officers had been appointed to collect debts in Scotland. I have a vision of those 193 sheriff officers in wheelchairs 30 years from now, still trying to collect poll tax debts incurred in the year 1989–90.
    Mr. Eric S. Heffer: Does the hon. Lady agree that poll tax is no longer just a Scottish problem, and that England now faces exactly the same situation that exists in Scotland? I hope that the English will take the same stand on the poll tax that the Scottish people have taken.
    Mrs. Ewing: I am grateful to the hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer) for his remarks. I can tell him that it was with a mixture of wry amusement and deep-seated anger that I and other right hon. and hon. Members opposed to the poll tax have witnessed the squirming of Conservative Members on suddenly realising the implications of the poll tax for their constituents when, prior to the 1987 general election, those same Conservative Members were happy to go straight through the Lobby to force the people of Scotland to be the guinea pigs for poll tax legislation.
    The poll tax is unworkable, costly, and an administrative nightmare. Many are committed to stopping it by sheer determination and will power. Those hon. Members who support my Bill are showing the same determination and will power, because they, too, are determined to stop the poll tax.
    The poll tax is only one element in the argument against warrant sales. I remind the House of my belief that warrant sales are barbaric and a relic of the Victorian era which should have no place in the late 20th century. Whatever may happen today because of time restrictions, we shall not give up the battle. Our arguments are based on humanitarian concerns for those in our society who most need our protection. We will be back.
    1.44 pm
    Mr. Dennis Canavan: I am pleased to support the Bill introduced by the hon. Member for Moray (Mrs. Ewing), and I was pleased and privileged to accept her invitation to become the co-sponsor of a Bill to abolish what she has rightly described as a barbaric and medieval practice.
    I should begin by declaring an interest. Last year I was threatened by sheriff officers with a warrant sale, because I had refused to pay a fine for not registering for the poll tax. I was not the only person in the central region of Scotland who received such a threat—there were more than 200 of us—but there was such a storm of protest throughout the area that the authorities were forced to withdraw the threat and none of the sales took place.
    Mr. Jim Sillars: Has the hon. Gentleman actually been done for his £50 fine yet?
    Mr. Canavan: Not yet—and I have not paid a penny in poll tax either. I do not intend to pay either the £50 fine or a penny of poll tax. I will gladly pay arrears to the local authority for services rendered as soon as any Minister can tell the House that the poll tax is to be abolished, but I am certainly not participating in the payment of an evil tax which has been imposed on the people of Scotland against their will.
    Mr. Sillars: The Government have not yet caught up with the limited number of people who did not register and were fined £50 but now they have threatened to go for the rest of us, including the hon. Member, for non-payment of the tax. If they have not yet caught up with the first category, there can be no chance of their catching up with the I million people who I believe have not paid the tax. The sheriff officers are so few in number that it would probably take 80 years to get around to every person who has not paid the poll tax.
    Mr. Canavan: It will certainly be difficult for the sheriff officers to operate the scheme, bearing in mind that there
    1188
    are fewer than 200 of them throughout Scotland and some 1 million people are in serious arrears with poll tax payments—including at least half a million such as myself who have not paid a penny. Some of us have not paid as a political protest against an unjust tax foisted upon us by a Government with no democratic mandate from the people of Scotland. As the hon. Member for Moray said in moving Second Reading, however, we are standing shoulder to shoulder with many people who have no choice in the matter because they simply cannot afford to pay. It is important that such people should not be isolated. That is why I have taken such a stand, and why I am not the only hon. Member to do so.
    During the 1970s and 1980s I campaigned strenuously for the abolition of warrant sales long before I was threatened with one myself—because it is humiliating and degrading for many people, particularly those on low incomes, to live in fear of a knock on the door by the sheriff officer. Throughout the 1970s and the early 1980s there was the potential ignominy of a sale taking place at a person's home or out on the front green—a public humiliation which was at least as great a punishment as the selling off of the goods.
    I should pay tribute to people such as the late Jimmy Dempsey, formerly the Member for Coatbridge and Airdrie, who campaigned strenuously and vociferously from the Labour Benches to get warrant sales abolished. Unfortunately, those in power at the time did not listen to him and all we got was a slight amendment to the legislation to extend the number of exempted items.
    In many cases, the warrant sale is not even an efficient method of enforcement. It is an expensive way of collecting what in most cases are relatively small debts. It costs quite a lot to obtain a warrant and it takes the time of the sheriff officer who has to visit the houses and carry out poindings of the goods in question. Then there are all the legal costs, and so on. Constituents of mine have complained to me that the expenses accumulated during the process have exceeded the initial sum due. On the basis of that argument, it is not even in the interests of the creditor to pursue a debt by means of a warrant sale.
    No doubt the Minister will have done his homework and will tell us that warrant sales take place infrequently. That may well change with the advent of poll tax. In any case, it is not the execution of a warrant sale alone that the victim finds distressing—it is the whole process leading up to it. Even if the person manages to borrow the money from a neighbour or relative and the sale is called off at the last minute, he will nevertheless have been through a traumatic experience, being pressured, initimidated and harassed by the so-called forces of law and order. I hope that the Minister will bear that in mind in relation to the frequency of warrant sales.
    The frequency of threatened warrant sales will almost certainly increase in the months ahead if non-payment of poll tax continues at the present level. Pickets and direct action to stop warrant sales taking place have already been threatened and if I find out about a proposed warrant sale in my constituency, I shall certainly not stand idly by and allow the sheriff officers to start badgering and bullying my constituents and selling off their goods just to try to collect this evil tax. If enough people stand firm, we can show the Government not only that the poll tax is an unjust and unwanted tax but that the system is absolutely unworkable.

    1189
    I appeal to the Minister to do the decent thing, which should have been done years ago, and abolish warrant sales completely so that the people of Scotland will never again be threatened in this way. These days the Government seem regularly to combine various pieces of legislation in one Bill because they cannot raise a team of Scottish Tory Members to man a Committee. If my hon. Friend is unsuccessful today, Government action will be required. If my hon. Friend's private Bill does not get a Second Reading today the Government could solve the problem by introducing a nice simple two-clause Bill which would probably require just one day in a Standing Committee. Clause I would abolish warrant sales and clause 2 would abolish the poll tax.
    1.53 pm
    Mr. Brian Wilson: To take up the last point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Falkirk, West (Mr. Canavan), I assure him that if the Bill does not make progress today the Opposition intend to introduce a new clause into the Law Reform (Miscellaneous Provisions) (Scotland) Bill which is being considered in the other place.
    I congratulate the hon. Member for Moray (Mrs. Ewing) on introducing the Bill and on the manner in which she presented it. I associate myself with my hon. Friend the Member for Falkirk, West in remembering Jimmy Dempsey who, when I was reporting these matters, rather than participating in these debates, had the longest and most honourable record of concentrating attention on warrant sales. That tradition has been followed by my hon. Friend the Member for Falkirk, West. His record of drawing attention to the matter, long before the poll tax impinged on it, is extremely good.
    I pay tribute to the print unions in Scotland. Few tributes are paid to them in this place. Those who have done most to undermine the evil process of diligence are not the Members of Parliament, journalists or other commentators who have deplored it over the years; those who have come closest to bringing the system to its knees are the print workers who have blacked the poisonous advertisements that have been an integral part of the warrant sales process.
    I am proud of the fact that the newspaper that I published, a small one, was the first in Scotland to ban the appearance of warrant sales advertisements. However, the people who, in a big way, prevented them from appearing in mass circulation newspapers were the print workers. I salute them for having done so.
    We in Scotland take pride in the distinctive qualities of the Scottish legal system. It has many strengths. However, we should acknowledge unanimously that the warrant sale is a peculiarly Scottish evil. It is a dreadful system. It has no redeeming feature. It is not efficient; it does not even lead to the collection of significant amounts of debt. However, it was never meant to collect debt. The system is based exclusively on the use of threat and fear.
    Mr. John Marshall: The hon. Gentleman is speaking from the Opposition Front Bench. Will he condemn the refusal by the hon. Member for Falkirk, West (Mr. Canavan) to pay the community charge? Does not he agree with the leader of his party that people should pay the community charge? Furthermore, will he explain how he would enforce the iniquitous roof tax?
    Mr. Wilson: I have no wish to emulate the hon. Gentleman as a hand-wringing humbug. I have no intention of condemning individuals for the stances that they take on grounds of personal conscience. I have made it clear on many occasions that both I and the Labour party strongly disagree with non-payment. I shall develop that point in my own way. However, for me as an individual to condemn one of my hon. Friends is not a course that I am prepared to take, just to satisfy the hon. Gentleman, with whom I agree about virtually nothing.
    The warrant sale process is based on the use of threat and fear. The warrant is issued because someone has fallen into debt. That is not exclusive to the poll tax. It can be used by private companies—and frequently is—and by public bodies, such as electricity boards. Most people would respond when they were served with the warrant. They would pay up, if they had the money. The great majority of people do. However, the process grinds on for those who do not. The sheriff's officer becomes involved, at which point the expenses begin to accumulate. When the sheriffs officer arrives at the door and goes through the corrupt procedure—that is a well-chosen word—of poinding, everybody who is in a position to pay does so.
    The sheriffs officers—and we will not say who they are in cahoots with—place a ludicrously low value on household goods. People may have taken a lifetime to collect their household furnishings and they must watch those people, who do one of the dirtiest jobs in Scottish society, place false valuations on their goods.
    I will leave the poll tax out of my considerations for the moment because it introduces other arguments. However, at the stage that I have just described, when the sheriffs officers make ludicrously low valuations on household goods, everyone who can pay the debt will do so rather than have their goods sold at such prices. We might expect the process to end there and perhaps for 95 per cent. of people, it does.
    However, the logic of the warrant sales system is that it cannot end there. The system is based on fear and, to encourage others, there must be a few victims or examples for whom the procedure goes its full course.
    It is at that point that a warrant sale is advertised arid that is where the poison occurs—[Interruption.] Madam Deputy Speaker, is it possible for the Whip's debate wit h the Clerk to end?
    Madam Deputy Speaker (Miss Betty Boothroyd): Order. Conversations in the Chamber are very distracting.
    Mr. Wilson: As I was saying, it is at that point that those poisonous little advertisements appear in the press in the full knowledge that the great majority of those sales will not take place. However, the advertisement is the instrument of fear and it is still used in some communities. Advertising and parading the debt and difficulty of poor people for public entertainment is the real lever of fear which causes people to meet the debt if they can. Once people hear that the advertisement is to appear, they somehow scrape up the money to pay off enough of the debt to fend off the appearance of the advert.
    At that stage there are handfuls of people who still cannot meet their debt. They clearly cannot meet their debt and their goods have been poinded for a ludicrously false amount. They face the prospect of seeing their goods sold. At that stage, some of the sales occur because the evil

    1191
    logic of the system is that if sales never take place, the process of fear that conditions every stage of the procedure might be diminished. Therefore, sales have to take place.
    Mr. Heifer: It is horrible having to listen to what is happening in Scotland. However, is my hon. Friend aware that a similar procedure affects poor people in England? If people cannot meet their debts there is a pernicious system under which the bailiffs are sent in and they do much the same thing as the sheriff officers in Scotland. They take the furniture and other goods to pay off the debt. Such a system is evil whether it exists in Scotland, England or Wales. It hits ordinary working people and that is absolutely disgraceful.
    Mr. Wilson: I agree with my hon. Friend. If there must be debt collection procedures, they should be based on arresting wages or capital, related to people's ability to pay over a long period.
    The Minister must understand that if the debt collection procedure were efficient, there might be something to be said for it even from a commercial point of view. However, by definition, the procedure is not efficient. It is based exclusively on the use of fear against the people who are least able to meet their debts. At the end of the day, the warrant sales do not sell off tapestries and precious belongings, they sell off the pathetic belongings of the poorest people in our communities who, even under the threat of poinding and the sale being advertised and carried out, have not been able to meet their debts. It is an inhumane system that is almost beyond belief.
    Mr. Sillars: I agree with the general tone of the hon. Gentleman's speech, but is he aware that, in the past few seconds, he was in danger of endorsing what happens in England as though it applies to Scotland? Because of the Debtors (Scotland) Act 1987, people cannot have their furniture, bed, bedding, cooking implements, cutlery and so on lifted. It would be a great tragedy if we transmit a false message to people in Scotland that those necessities could be lifted. The position is much narrower than it was, but the important point is the humiliation of the invasion of people's privacy.
    Mr. Wilson: I agree with the hon. Gentleman. Because of the efforts of people to whom I referred who have campaigned over many years, essential items cannot be poinded and subjected to warrant sales. In Scotland and England the law defines possessions as essential and non-essential. The "non-essential" may be much closer to the hearts of the people involved. In an average household, the one family heirloom might be deemed to be non-essential and the gas cooker might be deemed to be essential. I would not urge anyone to become involved in the process of diligence because they can retain essential items. There is intrusion, fear and horror, but, at the end of the day, next to nothing is collected. It is not a process of debt collection; it is a process of intimidation.
    I hate every aspect of the poll tax. It is an evil imposition. It is hated by people in Scotland. It has been the key to the downfall of the Conservative party in Scotland, and it will continue to be. The most amusing days I have seen were when the headless chickens on the Government side of the House came home to roost when
    1192
    they heard what the poll tax figures will be in their own areas. I have no doubt about the political impact of the poll tax in Scotland.
    I disagree with some hon. Members—it is an honourable disagreement—that a Member of Parliament on £25,000 a year who refuses to pay his or her poll tax and encourages others who are in much poorer circumstances to do likewise, is doing any favour to the poorer people whom he or she so urges. I do not revel in the prospect of I million or 500,000 people not paying anything towards the poll tax. In terms of local government services, it means either the disappearance of home help services, social work services and so on or that many poor people, who would not countenance the idea of debt, will have to pay more. I do not endorse that strategy. It is a waste of time. I do not endorse it because, as a political weapon against the Government—my political enemies—it is useless. It is preposterous to suggest that the Prime Minister will be brought to her knees because local authorities will be deprived of 10 per cent. of their revenue. For the past 10 years, her policies have been geared to depriving them of their revenue.
    I deplore the fact that local authorities, which have a legal obligation to collect their revenue and cannot make grand pronouncements about which parts of the law they will adopt for debt collection, have become the enemies and the targets of people who are running campaigns not to get rid of warrant sales or to attack the Government but to attack local authorities. I want nothing to do with that. Warrant sales are evil and they should be abolished. Eventually they will be abolished, but the Government should not try to pin them on local authorities. Local authorities are as much the enemies and victims of warrant sales as anyone else.
    2.9 pm
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Lord James Douglas-Hamilton): I have listened with great interest to what has been said and wish to make it absolutely clear that when the law on warrant sales was reformed not a single Opposition Member voted against the Bill——
    Alex Salmond (Banff and Buchan)rose—
    Mr. Canavan rose—
    Mr. Sillars rose—
    Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: If Opposition Members felt so passionately about this, it would have been perfectly legitimate for them to table an amendment at some stage of the Bill's passage and to have forced a vote on it, but they neglected to do so. I wish to stress the improvements that were made in that legislation.
    Mr. Canavan: Of course, no hon. Member would vote against the Second Reading of a Bill that would improve things. Although the provisions fell short of the complete abolition of warrant sales, they extended the number of exempt articles to bedding and heating implements. It is untrue to say that efforts were not made in Committee to achieve the outright abolition of warrant sales. Although I was not a member of the Standing Committee, I know that Labour Members, including my hon. Friend the Member for Kilmarnock and Loudoun (Mr. McKelvey), were instrumental in tabling an amendment in Committee to abolish warrant sales completely.
    Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: There was no vote on the Floor of the House on the abolition of warrant sales. The hon. Gentleman missed that opportunity.
    Mrs. Margaret Ewing rose——
    Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: No. I want to answer the points made by the hon. Member for Cunninghame, North (Mr. Wilson).
    Mr. Sillars: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Is it in order for the Minister to accuse Opposition Members by saying that they did not try to abolish warrant sales at an appropriate legislative point in the Bill's passage when, as has been pointed out, the Minister is inaccurate? Is it within your power in the Chair, Madam Deputy Speaker, to ask the Minister to have the grace to apologise?
    Lord James Douglas-Hamilton rose——
    Madam Deputy Speaker (Miss Betty Boothroyd): Order. Perhaps I may respond to that point of order. It is not within the power of the Chair to do what the hon. Gentleman has asked. It is a matter for debate, and the hon. Gentleman has made his point.
    Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: I shall check the record of the Committee proceedings with care, but no Opposition Member forced that matter to a vote on the Floor of the House and if Opposition Members had felt passionately about the issue that is the least that could have been expected of them.
    As the hon. Member for Cunninghame, North has said, substantial improvements were introduced in that legislation, although they are not widely known in Scotland.
    First, it is not the case that all the debtors' movable goods are at risk from poinding and sale. The list of household goods exempt from poinding and sale was considerably extended to include, for instance, children's toys, medical equipment, tools of trade, books or other equipment, curtains and floor coverings, and other items that are reasonably required for the use of the debtor or any member of his household. Similarly, articles that are reasonably required for the care or upbringing of children who are members of the debtors' household are now excluded. Those improvements were introduced to avoid undue harshness.
    Secondly, sales normally will take place not in the debtor's home but in the auction room, unless the debtor and any other occupier of the house gives his or her written consent for the sale to take place in the dwelling house.
    Mrs. Maria Fyfe (Glasgow, Maryhill)rose——
    Mrs. Margaret Ewing rose——
    Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: No, I have a lot of points to answer and want to go through all the improvements so that they are known. As I have said, in the absence of consent, sales will take place away from the debtor's house.
    Thirdly, any advertisement of the sale will not reveal who the debtor is, so there will be anonymity, which is an important point that was stressed by the Law Commission. The debtor has new opportunities to apply to the court to have his goods released or to have the sale called off on the ground, for example, that it would be unduly harsh for the sale to go ahead. In addition, the duration of the poinding
    1194
    was extended from six months to one year, increasing the opportunity for the debtor to come to arrangements with his creditor, and to settle his outstanding debt by instalments. It also acts as an incentive to creditors to settle the debt and to hold off instructing the sales until absolutely necessary. It should decrease the possibility of a sale taking place and increase the possibility of the debt being paid.
    Mr. Fyfe: Is the Minister saying that he approves of sheriff officers taking away a family's television set, which would not be considered an essential item, but which is often the only source of entertainment for many families because they do not have the fares or the money to go elsewhere for entertainment? Does the Minister approve of taking away a family heirloom, such as a grandmother's wedding ring, or a teenager's second-hand guitar?
    Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: The Law Commission looked into the matter with specific care when it considered which items should be exempted. One of its conclusions was that if warrant sales were abolished the alternatives—for example, sequestration—might be very much worse.
    Mrs. Margaret Ewing: Will the Minister give way?
    Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: I shall answer the question first.
    Warrant sales are the last-resort method of enforcing a debt and are seen as such by creditors. The alternatives, such as sequestration could be much more harsh. The commission considered that it would be nonsensical to regard sequestration as an alternative because it would extend to all the debtor's properties, possibly including his or her home.
    The hon. Member for Cunninghame, North stated that Scotland was alone in having such a system.
    Mr. Salmond: Will the Minister give way?
    Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: No. I must move on to the other points that have been raised.
    The hon. Member for Cunninghame, North suggested that Scotland was unique. That is far from the case. The Scottish Law Commission examined the system in all other countries and found that they had similar procedures. The Law Commission made it clear that such procedures exist in England and Wales.
    The Debtors (Scotland) Act 1987 added to the protection for the debtor from a warrant sale in certain circumstances, including, first, undue harshness, secondly, undervaluation of poindered goods and, thirdly, that the expenses of the sale were unlikely to exceed the proceeds of the sale. The debtor has 14 days in which to examine his right to object.
    Mr. Salmond: As he is the responsible Minister, the Minister should give us an answer to a specific question. Has he considered the proceedings in Fife region over the past few weeks? It has been admitted by Fife region that poindings have been carried out under illegal procedures by the sheriff officers A. A. Hutton. When those poindings were challenged in the sheriff court this week, they were discharged. The poindings were carried out under illegal documentation and other factors were wrong. They were no better than licensed burglary. Fife region says that there have been 300 poindings in Fife since 1987 when the Debtors (Scotland) Act 1987 came into force. Will the

    1195
    Minister investigate those 300 poindings over the past three years? The chances are that each one was illegal and was carried out under the wrong documentation.
    Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: It goes without saying that the correct procedures must be followed. In 1988 there were 14,759 poindings but only 714 warrant sales. Poindings are carried out not only for non-payment of the community charge but for debts to a whole range of creditors, many of whom are not wealthy.
    I find it hard to have sympathy with those who deliberately refuse to pay their community charge when they can afford to do so. Regrettably, the sponsors of the Bill fall into that category.
    Mrs. Margaret Ewing: Will the Minister give way?
    Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: No. I wish to make this point.
    I have no doubt about the sincerity of the hon. Member for Moray (Mrs. Ewing) in her dislike of the community charge, but we must never forget that the non-payment campaign supported by the Scottish National party Members of Parliament and the sponsors of the Bill may result in their having a free ride at the expense of the rest of the community. I regret that some of the non-payers are Members of Parliament, not only because hon. Members should set an example but because they are relatively well-off members of the community. They earn well in excess of £20,000 a year, paid for by the taxpayers.
    Mrs. Fyfe: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Is it in order for the Minister to mislead the House by saying that people who have not paid their community charge or poll tax will have a free ride when he must know that there are provisions for people who have refused to pay to be charged an extra 10 per cent. Plus costs? Can he possibly defend——
    Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Lady knows that those are not matters for the Chair but matters for debate.
    Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: The hon. Lady touches on a matter with which the Bill deals. If people were to follow the bad example of defying the law which requires them to pay taxes, they might have to face a surcharge. That matter was referred to in The Scotsman yesterday by a Labour spokesman from Easterhouse. It reported:
    "An Easterhouse councillor, Alexander Viola, said many non-payers were telling him that they had been misled by campaigners.
    Harry Revie, another Labour member, said 'We have to face facts that we are up against a sinister campaign and we must draw the teeth of these people. We must point out that there has been a positive response to the first warrants.' "
    There is no doubt that warrants are effective.
    Mrs. Margaret Ewing rose——
    Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: No, I shall not give way.
    It is monstrously unfair for Members of Parliament to refuse to pay. By their actions they are effectively putting an extra burden on less-well-off people in their constituencies. In those circumstances, it is right that local
    1196
    authorities should have the power to enforce payment against privileged members of the community such as the hon. Lady.
    Mrs. Margaret Ewing: I am grateful to the Minister for giving way finally; it seems that he is trying to emulate the hon. Member for Stirling (Mr. Forsyth) in his approach today.
    Although the Minister wants to resort to political attacks, his colleagues have pointed out that the level of non-payment is no different from the level of non-payment of the rates. Were people misled about the rates as well?
    Will he now apply himself to the issue that the Bill attempts to address, how we recoup debt from people in a sensible and civilised fashion? When the Scottish Law Commission looked at this issue it recognised that warrant sales were used only to compel people to reach agreement on instalments. It suggested that there should be a court enforcement office to consider the possibility of doing things in a more civilised fashion. Why do the Government continue to turn their back on bringing forward something for debt collection that is much more relevant and humane?
    Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: Responsibility for debt collection lies with local authorities and it must be up to them to decide on the most appropriate method to choose. In the vast majority of cases that will no doubt take the form of the arrestment of earnings or bank accounts. The hon. Lady is suggesting that warrants should be removed as the final sanction. The hon. Lady also asked about the position of non-payers, but I must remind her that under the rating system a remarkable number of people did not pay rates.
    Mr. Wilson: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. This debate is about the law of diligence and warrant sales and the hon. Member for Moray (Mrs. Ewing) has done well to introduce it. We are not here to listen to a political tirade about the poll tax.
    Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: That is a case of the pot calling the kettle black, especially as the hon. Gentleman made a great number of party-political points in his speech.
    Mr. John Marshall: Does my hon. Friend agree that it is rather strange that the Labour party seems to be posing as the party of tax dodgers?
    Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: It is grossly irresponsible for any Member of Parliament to support non-payment of our country's taxes. Non-payment leads to three possible results. The first is that services could suffer if enough people followed the example set by certain hon. Members. The second is that there might be redundancies as a result, which would also be undesirable, and the third is that those hon. Members' constituents would have to pay more because they, as privileged Members of Parliament, were refusing to pay. If enough people followed their example, the rest of their constituents would have to pay more. Those hon. Members are setting an extremely bad example and by their encouragement of non-payment they are rendering a disservice to their constituents.
    Mr. Salmond: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Given that the Minister has been presented with evidence of illegal activity over poindings in Fife during a

    1197
    three-year period, is it in order for the Minister to ignore completely that point in his reply? As the responsible Minister, is it in order for him to be unaware that poindings have been carried out, first and foremost, in the Fife and Grampian——
    Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. I am sure that the Minister is attempting to respond to the debate on the Second Reading of the Bill.
    Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: The Debtors (Scotland) Act 1987 is a properly constituted Act and its procedures should be accurately followed. On 7 February the Evening News reported:
    "Councillor Simpson failed to get a seconder when he attempted to move at today's Finance Committee that the rules for warrant sales either be clarified or changed to give clearer notice to the public that poindings were about to take place."
    He did not have a seconder because everyone knew that the procedures had been greatly improved in that Act.
    The hon. Gentleman raised the valid point that procedures are lengthy. Of course they are, because their purpose is to ensure that the debtor has the opportunity to pay. First, authorities issue a soft reminder when people fall in arrears by two months. When people fall in arrears by three such instalments, the authority can issue a seven-day letter requiring people to pay the arrears in seven days or lose the right to pay by instalments. If no payment is made, people receive a 14-day letter advising them that as they failed to respond to the seven-day letter they are liable for the full annual amount which must be paid in 14 days. It is only following a failure to respond to that letter that the authority applies to the court for a summary warrant. Even at that stage, a warrant sale is a long way off. There is a range of technical procedures to be gone through, and it is open to an authority to enter a phased payment agreement with the debtor.
    Experience shows that a large number of people who enter into a payment arrangement with the authority pay and the warrants are highly successful in ensuring that that happens. As Mr. Revie said in The Scotsman, there has been a positive response to the first warrants issued.
    Mr. Sillars rose——
    Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: I have given way many times, but, as the hon. Gentleman is on his feet, I stress that the one council in the whole of Scotland that the Scottish National party runs, Angus district council, is busy collecting the community charge. It knows that it has responsibilities of office that it must discharge properly in accordance with the wishes of the electorate. The hon. Member for Glasgow, Govan (Mr. Sillars) knows that he has no chance of ever having any of the responsibilities of government.
    Mr. Sillars: Given the Minister's explanation of the long procedure before there are warrant sales, does he agree with the statement made the other day by the anti-poll tax federation spokesman in the west of Scotland, that, given that long procedure, the vast number of us who are poll tax rebels and the small number of sheriff officers, it will take about 80 years to get around the lot of us?
    Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: No. In Strathclyde more than 70,000 warrants were issued in relation to rates and very few of them had to go all the way to warrant sales. In the fantasy world in which the hon. Gentleman
    1198
    lives, he would suggest that we should pay taxes only if we felt like it, and pick and choose those laws that we wish to obey. Such an attitude leaves him completely unfitted to govern.
    As the hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Maxton) said, to his credit, all responsible politicans have rejected the case for a mass campaign of non-payment. There is no doubt that by taking up their posture of non-payment hon. Members seek to sponge off their communities and constituents. It is a disgrace to their offices as Scottish Members of Parliament.
    Several Hon. Members: How much is the Minister saving on poll tax?
    Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. I need to hear the Minister.
    Mr. Canavan: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Is it in order for the Minister to make false accusations when he is lining his pocket out of the poll tax?
    Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: I pay a personal and a standard community charge. For the hon. Gentleman to say that he is standing shoulder to shoulder with non-payers is highly irresponsible. It is convenient for him to do so, but it will not pay for social services, street lighting or schools, and he——
    Mr. Wilson rose——
    Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: No. I shall not gave way. I have given way enough. The hon. Member for Falkirk, West (Mr. Canavan ) conveniently forgets that more than 1 million people in Scotland receive substantial rebates.
    Mr. Wilson rose——
    Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: No. I shall not give way because I want to answer the points made.
    Mrs. Margaret Ewing rose in her place and claimed to move, That the Question be now put, but MADAM DEPUTY SPEAKER withheld her assent and declined then to put that Question.
    Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: I saw the hon. Gentleman on television last night——
    Mr. Sillars: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Is it not out of order that the Minister has not declared his pecuniary interests in so far as he has saved vast sums of money paying the poll tax compared with what he used to pay in rates?
    Madam Deputy Speaker: If the Minister had a pecuniary interest to declare, I am sure that he would have declared it before now.
    Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: Obviously the hon. Gentleman has the merest possible interest in the Bill since he is seeking to evade paying his taxes, and that is grossly irresponsible, I agree with the point made——
    Mrs. Fyfe: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Is it not also outrageous that the Minister seeks to defend landlords in Scotland——
    Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. This has nothing whatsoever to do with the Chair.
    Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: On this particular point——
    It being half-past Two o'clock, the debate stood adjourned.
    Debate to be resumed on Friday 16 February.

  Private Members' Bill

    BRITISH RACING COMMISSION BILL
    Order for Second Reading read.
    Madam Deputy Speaker (Miss Betty Boothroyd): Not moved.

    INTEREST ON DEBTS BILL
    Order read for resuming adjourned debate on Second Reading [2 February].
    Mr. Harry Cohen (Leyton): On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. On the British Racing Commission Bill——
    Madam Deputy Speaker: What is the hon. Gentleman raising?
    Mr. Cohen: I wish to move the Bill on behalf of the hon. Member——
    Madam Deputy Speaker: We are now on item No. 4, the Interest on Debts Bill.
    The Question is, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
    Hon. Members: Object.
    Madam Deputy Speaker: Debate to be resumed what day? No day named.

    HORSES (PROTECTIVE HEADGEAR FOR YOUNG RIDERS) BILL
    Read a Second time, and committed to a Standing Committee pursuant to Standing Order No. 61 (Committal of Bills).

    FOOTBALL SPECTATORS BILL
    Order for Second Reading read.
    Hon. Members: Object.
    Second Reading deferred till Friday 16 February.
    Mr. Cohen: May I ask that the British Racing Commission Bill be read on Friday next as it is on behalf of the same hon. Member——
    Madam Deputy Speaker: Order.

    REGISTRATION OF COMMERCIAL LOBBYING INTERESTS BILL
    Order for Second Reading read.
    Hon. Members: Object.
    Second Reading deferred till Friday 16 February.

    Cassel Hospital
    Motion made and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Fallon.]
    2.32 pm
    Mr. Jeremy Hanley (Richmond and Barnes): I am grateful for the opportunity to set before the House the circumstances which led to the proposed closure of a uniquely important hospital of world repute. I am particularly grateful that my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Health is giving of his busy time to be here. He is a man who combines the qualities of compassion and a keenly analytical mind. I hope that I shall be able to convince him, as a fellow chartered accountant, that my plea for the continuation of the Cassel hospital is based as much on good financial sense as its medical achievements and the emotions that proposed hospital closures often cause.
    The hospital was founded in 1919 by Sir Ernest Cassel, the father of Edwina Mountbatten, to care for those suffering from extreme psychological trauma as a result of service in the first world war. In the next 30 years the hospital built up a reputation second to none in the way in which it treated severe mental disturbance, not only in those who were seemingly destroyed by their experience of the carnage of war but thereafter in those who could be regarded as suffering from the civilian equivalent of shell shock, causing their minds to desert from some current horror and all too frequently affecting not only themselves but their family and their community.
    The hospital's reputation grew and it became rich in endowments in addition to the generosity of Sir Ernest Cassel. Then, in 1948, on the creation of the National Health Service, all its assets, its present building and land, its staff accommodation and endowments were given to the nation on the understanding that it would continue to function as a national hospital in the same pioneering experimental way relative to mental and emotional disturbance as it had done before.
    The hospital is situated on the south side of Ham common in my constituency of Richmond and Barnes and is a local landmark in one of the most beautiful corners of what has become London. Its value lies not only in its real estate but in the way in which it forms a traditional part of the Ham community. Although its patients may come from far afield, and although it is controlled by a health authority outside my constituency boundaries, many of the helpers and friends of the hospital are my constituents and they regard the hospital and its existence as a noble, harmonious and civilising part of our community.
    In the more than 40 years during which the hospital has continued to develop from the principles of the famous partnership of the medical director, Dr. Main, and the doughty matron, Miss Weddell, its reputation and that of the team which works therein have spread world wide. The hospital trains doctors and nurses employed in general medical and psychiatric hospitals and also those in general practice in community work who come from far afield. The hospital's creation of the concept of a "therapeutic community" has been adopted in countless countries where it is recognised that in many cases it is not just the patient alone who needs to be treated but the whole family, particularly in child abuse cases or in cases where families have to come to terms with a cataclysmic episode in the life of a family member.
    1202
    On one visit to the hospital I saw a nurse from Stoke Mandeville being trained to explain to a mother or wife that a loved one might never walk again, or worse. On other occasions I have seen doctors and nurses and on my last visit I saw people from Sweden taking away with them skills unique to this institution and thus to the United Kingdom.
    I have received letters from all over the world from professors, doctors and past patients who are utterly amazed that anyone should be considering closing the Cassel hospital and breaking up its remarkable team. A typical response is contained in a letter that I received yesterday from a doctor in Germany. He says:
    "the Cassel Hospital has an international reputation as a special institution for the psychiatricpsychotherapeutic treatment of particularly difficult patients. For decades it attracts specialists from all over the world who wish to be informed about or trained in therapeutic methods. This fact is acknowledged in the international scientific literature for years. It would be a great loss for Great Britain and the whole of Europe if this hospital were to be closed down at a time when new prospectives and certainly new prospects as regards funding can be expected in the course of European unification. Furthermore I take the liberty to point out that a cost saving in this clientele can certainly not be achieved in this manner, on the contrary, when missing specialised treatment other medical services of the district will be claimed to a higher degree. German investigation shows that the demands for such services reduce drastically after psychotherapy".
    What is the threat of closure and how has it come about? For one reason or another, despite being a national institution, the Cassel hospital has found itself being funded by a district health authority, Riverside, one of the districts of the North West Thames regional health authority. The hospital and all its patients are thus funded by a mere district even though nearly half its patients are referred from outside its region. In years gone by, many more of its patients came from further afield but there has been a national retrenchment as economies proved essential.
    It may not be generally understood outside the National Health Service—it was certainly not understood by me until I studied the problem—that if a patient is referred on medical grounds from, say, Birmingham to a London hospital, no payment is made by the health authority in the patient's home town. The full cost of treatment is borne by the district which funds the hospital and there is no mechanism for that funding to be transferred. It is natural that Riverside health authority should want to make the most of its revenue and its assets, especially when it is building a major new hospital in Chelsea.
    In an Adjournment debate two nights ago to which my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Health replied, it was said that the estimated cost of the whole Chelsea hospital scheme had risen from £78 million to a staggering £173 million. Those are last year's figures. My hon. Friend the Member for Welwyn Hatfield (Mr. Evans), who opened that Adjournment debate, said that in 1989–90 only three of the 14 regional health authorities In England were in deficit. One of those, North West Thames, had a deficit of approximately £13 million—more than twice the size of the other two deficits put together. One can see why Riverside is eyeing the prospect of closing the Cassel hospital to save £1,250,000 of revenue expenditure which, it is sometimes claimed, currently treats only 80 in-patients per year. I shall expand on those figures later in my speech.

    1203
    The sum of £1,250,000 could treat hundreds more patients resident in the immediate Riverside district, and the really great prize, it is said, is the hospital itself. It was once a hotel and might possibly revert to that use. It has been valued, with the extremely attractive land which forms part of its beautiful site just 10 miles from Westminster, at £10 million. That would make quite a contribution to the new hospital at Chelsea.
    The hospital offers accommodation for 55 patients at any one time, but—and it is a very big "but"—it handles more than 4,000 out-patient consultations every year, of which 2,500 form part of ongoing treatment. There are 750 new referrals each year, and there is a small day unit for school age children in which the teacher co-ordinates academic work with the work of psychotherapists. Further specialised nursing derives from in-patient nursing methods.
    Not just 80 patients per year but thousands receive treatment at Cassel. There has also been careful costing by its administration as to how the hospital can continue under a charging-out regime. The hospital could pay for itself and become no burden on Riverside. When I asked the district health authority what would happen if the hospital closed—where patients would go and where the staff would take their skills—the answer was that no one knows because Cassel is unique.
    Even if the unit were transferred to a site in the country, so that the glittering prize of £10 million in real estate could be realeased, it would take years to build up confidence in the new establishment and to impart the same confidence in those further afield who knew the Cassel of old.
    It is tragic that at a time when so much emphasis is being placed on the importance of the family unit, consideration is being given to the closure of the one institution that really works with, and cares for, the family. In the past four years, Cassel's family work has been concerned mainly with cases where child abuse has occurred. Parents and children separated by local authorities or by the courts have been brought together in the hope of rebuilding the family unit. The High Court, Great Ormond Street hospital, the Tavistock clinic, many local authorities, and countless general practitioners and psychiatrists have become accustomed to using Cassel as a last resort in an effort to help families of the kind all too frequently featured in our newspapers and on TV news.
    A considerable number of the single adults treated at Cassel were abused as children. If only their families could have been given the help granted to some of those at the hospital now. Many patients are socially dependent; they have poor relationships, make no contribution to society, and are often unable to work at all. Often they have made endless and expensive demands on psychiatric and social services and are depressed, dejected and at times even self-destructive.
    A five-year follow-up study of a group of 28 patients published at the 15th European conference on psychosomatic research proved the cost-effectiveness of psychotherapy. York university's health services unit calculated that £500,000 had been saved by treating that small group of 28 patients alone. That was attributed to the patients having a greatly reduced need for in-patient treatment and having moved from being 98 per cent.
    1204
    unemployed to more than 90 per cent. employed. The group had become brighter, more sociable and more constructive.
    Several studies of similar patients have been made in West Germany and Scandinavia. Even Germany's health insurance industry now willingly finances the training of psychotherapists and their clinical work. Cassel can prove that its former patients require a much reduced level of hospitalisation in any year than if they had not undergone treatment there. That accords with research showing that out of 1,004 patients, 845 required a hospital stay for any reason of only 0·78 days in any one year instead of the expected 2·4 days—representing a great saving in Health Service costs.
    The unit is cost-effective even now. I mentioned that its total budget is £1·25 million. When training, out-patients and consultations for other institutions are taken into account, the daily bed cost is only £34·25—compared with the recently established Charter Clinic in Chelsea where bed costs are reported to be £200 per day. The hospital is thus an efficient and economical organisation, and inexpensive—priceless, indeed—for what it does. Considerable economies result because patients and their families often work in the treatment programmes. Nurses and patients eat and live together. The hospital becomes a home to those who probably have no home, or certainly not one that we might recognise.
    The costings carried out by the hospital administrators show that the total revenue that could be earned by 1991 would be between £2·25 million and £2·5 million. If they could charge, as they have never been able to do, district and regional health authorities and overseas visitors for the services that they provide—this is an expanding market—they could more than pay their way. They would have the capacity to raise private money from businesses and charities, and therefore would be no burden on the state or the district health authority.
    To do that, however, they need the security of long-term residence at their existing premises. I blame no one for the present position. The Cassel hospital wants to survive, and its existence has been justified time and again. The staff possess unique skills, and they serve both the nation and the wider world.
    The district health authority needs to use money as efficiently and effectively as possible so as to treat the maximum number of patients with the funds at its disposal. I do not blame the authority. I believe that it has a greater demand for general medicine and surgery and could treat many more of its own residents if funds were diverted elsewhere. I can see the authority's argument. It is merely studying its assets and seeking to manage them efficiently, and so it should. Perhaps, however, the measurement of such assets lies not in balance sheet values alone, and the authority should perhaps realise that the institution developed at the Cassel hospital is quite literally priceless.
    The Government cannot be blamed—except for the fact that what is clearly a national service finds itself funded by a mere district health authority. After all, the Government are giving to the National Health Service more money than ever before in our history and, next year, for the first time, even more than is spent on defence.
    The Government have said that self-governing hospital trusts within the NHS could be a successful way to maximise funding of special bodies—the Cassel hospital

    1205
    could be one of them—but an even better suggestion, which I know that the Minister would warmly welcome, would be the contracting route, as from April 1991.
    The hospital needs to stay alive until April 1991, however, and its death is imminent. The district health authority meets again at the end of this month with plans to close the hospital. The community health council may be able to stave off closure until the summer, and then there will be appeals to the Department of Health, but we are still talking about a death sentence and the hospital might not reach April 1991.
    I ask the Minister to appreciate that the Cassel hospital is a unique resource, and to give Riverside health authority the breathing space that it needs to come up with a permanent solution for funding the Cassel. It would be an act of material vandalism for the unit to be broken up simply to pay for some 5 per cent. of a new general hospital, however great the need for that might be.
    Sometimes people who do not understand the Cassel say that it is a Rolls-Royce service that we can ill afford in the National Health Service. If to be a Rolls-Royce service is to be the very best that exists—an example and a target for all and the best service that can be offered—the Cassel is indeed a Rolls-Royce, and its existence shows what is possible within the NHS and sets standards to which others should aspire. It is a unit which provides answers to questions repeatedly raised over the years in official child abuse inquiries so that the tragic mistakes made in many places, from Greenwich to Cleveland, need not reoccur. If we cannot afford a unit which offers such hope and has proved so much, I despair not only for the future of the National Health Service but for those children and families whose suffering will continue, and for the nation and its Social Service and Health Departments which will have to bear the cost—and not just the financial costs—of continuing illness and abuse.
    2.49 pm
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health (Mr. Roger Freeman): I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Richmond and Barnes (Mr. Hanley) on a powerful presentation of the problems of, and prospects for, the Cassel hospital. I am in a slightly difficult position because if the community health council appealed against a decision about the future of the hospital, I should ultimately have to adjudicate. My hon. Friend will understand, therefore, that I shall have to be circumspect in what I say. Nevertheless, as a Minister who is responsible in part for mental health, I have a particular interest, in the work not only of this hospital, but of all our psychiatric hospitals. My hon. Friend was right to describe the unique nature of the hospital's work.
    My hon. Friend and I are both chartered accountants and I agree with him that in the Health Service, value is not just a balance sheet or financial value. Many other aspects of service must be taken into account. There is no question but that the hospital provides a unique range of services. My hon. Friend rightly touched on its work in child abuse cases. It is also unique in that its patients are drawn from a wide range of districts. I gather that about 50 per cent. of the patients are drawn from outside the region that is responsible for the hospital. One quarter of all the training places for consultant psychotherapists in the United
    1206
    Kingdom are at the Cassel. I also understand that it is the only place where psycho-social nurses are trained, and that, too, is an important point.
    My hon. Friend drew attention to the fact that whereas the hospital deals with 4,000 to 6,000 out-patients a year, it may care for only 80 in-patients a year. He rightly suggested that, with a revenue budget of £1 million to £1·25 million, the cost per in-patient place must be about £10,000 per annum. I am neither surprised nor put off by that figure. St. Andrew's, a hospital in Northamptonshire just outside the southern end of my constituency, provides places for people with severe behavioural problems at a cost of about £50,000 a year. That is the order of magnitude with which we are dealing. It is important that the House should appreciate that treatment costs for the disturbed and those needing psychotherapy are high. We must face that fact in the National Health Service.
    When Ministers are asked to adjudicate on closure, major rationalisation or change of service proposals, they have to assess the consequences for patient services. These proposals appear not to be in the classic mould of proposals by a district or region wishing to treat patients in hospital A or hospital B—a rationalisation or centralisation move. As my hon. Friend rightly asked, if the hospital closes, where will the patients be treated? He is right that that question has not been answered. That is clearly a material fact which must be addressed in any proposal and a satisfactory answer must be given. No one doubts that the hospital provides a unique range of services.
    My hon. Friend put his finger on the problem when he said that Riverside district health authority, part of North West Thames regional health authority is responsible for financing an institution that has a client base broader than the district, which, although geographically small, is nevertheless important to the citizens of London. The argument runs that it is inappropriate for Riverside to be asked to bear the full burden of the cost of the hospital.
    My hon. Friend drew attention to the Adjournment debate earlier this week when my hon. Friend the Member for Welwyn Hatfield (Mr. Evans) argued in an impassioned debate that faster progress should be made by the North West Thames regional health authority towards transferring relatively—not absolutely—resources from the inner and outer London district health authorities to the shire district health authorities, as that is where the population is moving to and where it is growing.
    It is important to appreciate the reasons for the pressures. There are pressures on Cassel because of Riverside's revenue deficit, which is forecast to be about £5 million for 1989–90. The regional health authority has placed an obligation on Riverside to balance its books within the next two financial years.
    The North West Thames regional health authority also faces a problem over shifting resources relatively from the London districts to the shire districts, a point which my hon. Friend was right to acknowledge. There is also the problem that Cassel's patients are drawn from the whole country, not just from the district or the region.
    My hon. Friend referred to the Chelsea and Westminster hospital. I am aware of revenue pressures there, but I am not aware of capital pressures: that as the cost of the Chelsea and Westminster hospital has undoubtedly increased because of the rise in construction costs, we must therefore look around for capital assets to sell. That may be a consequential benefit of any proposal

    1207
    that may or may not be advanced, but that is not the driving force; it is clearly and understandably revenue based.
    My hon. Friend said that the death of the hospital is imminent. The district health authority is to meet on 22 February to decide whether to proceed with the closure of Cassel. If it decides to close the hospital, it must consult. Statutory obligations are laid on the district health authority to do so. If the community health council, which it must consult, objects, the matter must go to the regional health authority. If the CHC is able to sustain its objection, the proposal will come to Ministers. That allows time for proper evaluation of the consequences of closure and of the strong feelings held by patients, residents and consultants. I shall want to be kept closely informed.
    I do not intend to comment on Cassel's future. My hon. Friend will understand the difficult position in which I am placed; I may or may not be asked to adjudicate on its future. In general terms, however, I believe that my hon. Friend is right when he says that if a hospital is faced with the prospect of closure for whatever reason—whether on account of rationalisation or for financial reasons—it is appropriate to look forward to 1991–92, when contracts will allow money to follow the patient. My hon. Friend must be right when he says that hospitals in this position should begin to look forward and ask themselves,
    1208
    whatever their circumstances, "Which districts are our patients coming from? Can we persuade the clinicians in those districts financially to support the flow of patients, even though it may cost £10,000 per patient? Can we persuade the district health authorities to support financially a particular hospital?" That is a perfectly appropriate exercise. I suggest that all hospitals, whether or not they are faced with this predicament, ought to look forward to 1991–92, try to understand their patient flows, begin to explain to fellow clinicians the value of the work that has been done and seek appropriate financial support.
    Furthermore, one must not necessarily assume that a hospital needs to stay within the National Health Service even if it wants to provide services to NHS patients.
    Ministers have no philosophical objections to the provision of revenue from the National Health Service to pay for the essential treatment of patients in hospitals that may not be within the NHS—whether they be independent or voluntary.
    Because of my responsibilities for mental health, I am deeply interested in the future of Cassel hospital and the care of the patients and their families. I assure my hon. Friend that if the closure decision comes to Ministers for adjudication, I will visit my hon. Friend, his constituency and the hospital and talk to the clinicians, administrators and patients.
    Question put and agreed to.
    Adjourned accordingly at one minute to Three o'clock.

EDUCATION AND SCIENCE

  Blue Coat School, Liverpool
  Mr. Alton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science (1) when he expects to make an announcement on the proposal to turn the Blue Coat school, Liverpool, into a four-term entry school;

  (2) when he received the submission to alter the size of the Blue Coat school, Liverpool; what was the last date for objection; and what is the average length of time it takes to process an application.

  Mr. Alan Howarth
  My right hon. Friend will come to a decision on this proposal as quickly as is compatible with a full and careful consideration of all the issues involved.

  My right hon. Friend received the governors' submission on 20 July 1989. The period of statutory objection to the proposals ended on 18 September 1989. The current average length of time for the consideration of statutory proposals is about six months.

  Nursery Education
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will list the 10 authorities which have the highest number of children in nursery education.

  Mr. Alan Howarth
  In January 1989 the 10 local education authorities which had the highest percentage of children under five in nursery education were as follows:

  Number of children under five in nursery schools and classes

  Per cent. of estimated 3 and 4-year-old population

  Hounslow

  3,786

  65

  Walsall

  4,148

  58

  Wolverhampton

  3,860

  58

  Newham

  4,086

  55

  Manchester

  7,154

  55

  Cleveland

  8,847

  54

  North Tyneside

  2,505

  53

  Salford

  3,140

  52

  South Tyneside

  1,986

  51

  Liverpool

  6,190

  49

  Teachers' Pay
  Dr. Kim Howells
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science whether the remit he has given to the interim advisory committee regarding the total cost of recommendations on school teachers' pay and allowances has been reflected in the education components of standard spending assessments for 1990–91; if he will make a statement on the distribution of the relevant provision between(a) London and south-east England, (b) all other regions of England and (c) Wales; what amount and proportion of relevant provision has been allocated to each of (a), (b) and (c) above; and what percentage increase this represents in each case.
  794
  Mr. Alan Howarth
  Education standard spending for England for 1990–91 allows in full for the remit given in September to the interim advisory committee, the English element of which was £563 million. Education standard spending, net of specific grants, is distributed between authorities on the basis of client numbers adjusted by factors which allow for local circumstances. These factors include an area cost adjustment which takes account of differential labour costs as between inner London, outer London, south-eastern counties and the rest of England. The area cost adjustment factors are set out in annex F of the Revenue Support Grant Distribution Report (England). The basis of the standard spending assessment in Wales is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales.

  Schools (Local Management)
  Mr. Fatchett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will list those local education authorities whose schemes for local management of schools have been(a) approved, (b) rejected and (c) upon which no decision has been made.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  We have announced our approval decisions on all 97 local education authorities' LMS schemes which were submitted last autumn. The following local education authorities have either received formal approval for their schemes or are being consulted on modifications prior to approval for implementation in April 1990:

  Avon

  Barking and Dagenham

  Barnet

  Barnsley

  Bedfordshire

  Berkshire

  Bexley

  Birmingham

  Bolton

  Bradford

  Brent

  Bromley

  Buckinghamshire

  Bury

  Calderdale

  Cambridgeshire

  Cheshire

  Cleveland

  Cornwall

  Coventry

  Cumbria

  Derbyshire

  Devon

  Doncaster

  Dorset

  Dudley

  Durham

  Ealing

  East Sussex

  Enfield

  Essex

  Gateshead

  Gloucestershire

  Hampshire

  Haringey

  Harrow

  Havering

  Hillingdon

  Hounslow

  Humberside

  Isle of Wight

  Kent

  Kingston

  Kirklees

  795

  Knowsley

  Lancashire

  Leeds

  Lincolnshire

  Liverpool

  Manchester

  Merton

  Newcastle

  Norfolk

  North Tyneside

  North Yorkshire

  Northamptonshire

  Northumberland

  Nottinghamshire

  Oldham

  Oxfordshire

  Redbridge

  Richmond

  Rochdale

  Rotherham

  Sandwell

  Salford

  Sefton

  Sheffield

  Shropshire

  Solihull

  Somerset

  South Tyneside

  Staffordshire

  St. Helens

  Stockport

  Suffolk

  Sunderland

  Surrey

  Sutton

  Tameside

  Trafford

  Wakefield

  Walsall

  Waltham Forest

  Warwickshire

  West Sussex

  Westminster

  Wigan

  Wiltshire

  Wirral

  Wolverhampton

  LEAs whose schemes cannot be approved in their present form are Croydon, Hereford and Worcester, Hertfordshire, the Isles of Scilly, Leicestershire and Newham.

  Mummified Relics
  Mr. Fisher
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science whether he will publish a table showing(a) the universities which have mummified aboriginal or Maori relics in their collections and (b) the number of such relics in each collection.

  Mr. Jackson
  This information is not collected centrally.

  Arts and Science Courses
  Mr. McFall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what percentage of undergraduates following first degree courses in the arts and science faculties at Scottish universities take a four-year course; and what is the comparable figure for England and Wales.

  Mr. Jackson
  [holding answer 22 January 1990]: The Universities' Statistical Record shows that, for the academic year 1988–89, 77 per cent. of full-time and sandwich students pursuing first degrees in arts and science
  796
  subjects at Scottish universities were on four-year courses. The comparable figure for England and Wales was 22 per cent.

NORTHERN IRELAND

  Plastic Bullets
  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many times plastic bullets were used in the first six months of 1989; what were the circumstances of each incident; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Cope
  I am writing to the hon. and learned Member with the details for the first six months of 1989, in which 235 plastic baton rounds were fired. I shall place a copy of my letter in the Library.

  Red Book Prisoners
  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what is the status of a red book prisoner in terms of parole and review procedures; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Cope
  In Northern Ireland, top risk (commonly known as "red book") prisoners are those who are considered to have the greatest escape potential and who, if at large, would pose the greatest threat to society and the security forces.

  There is no system of parole in Northern Ireland but there is provision for compassionate home leave, pre-release home leave and Christmas and summer home leave. All prisoners, including those in the top risk category, are eligible to apply for compassionate home leave in the event of the death or critical illness of a member of the immediate family; each case is considered on its merits. Applications from all fixed-term prisoners, including those in the top risk category, for pre-release home leave or Christmas home leave are also considered on their merits. Top risk prisoners were, however, excluded from the 1989 Christmas home leave scheme for indeterminate sentence prisoners who had served 13 years in custody because they had not made satisfactory progress towards release.

  The cases of all indeterminate sentence prisoners are reviewed at regular stages throughout sentence. At each review all the relevant factors pertaining to the prisoner, including his security categorisation, are taken into account in deciding whether to recommend release or to set the date of the next review.

  All top risk prisoners have their cases reviewed regularly to see if they can be downgraded to a lower security category.

  Western Education and library Service
  Mr. William Ross
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what increases in staff are presently proposed by the Western education and library board for or during the present or next financial year; what are the grades and salaries of such staff; and whether they are to be funded by an increase in the sums allocated by his Department or from the presently existing level of funds.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  [holding answer 23 January 1990]: Staffing complements and structures are primarily a

  797
  matter for each education and library board to determine. Information about lower graded staff outside head-quarters is not readily available and could be provided only at disproportionate cost. However, the Western education and library board has provided the following information about its additional headquarters staffing proposals:

  Grade

  1989–90

  1990–91

  Salary scale £

  Adviser

  —

  5

  23,679–25,389

  Senior administration officer

  —

  2

  16,743–18,225

  Seconded teacher

  —

  1

  Teachers salary plus allowance of £1,260 pa

  Systems analyst

  —

  1

  14,658–15,810

  Administrative officer

  1

  —

  14,658–15,810

  Senior executive officer

  —

  1

  11,667–13,824

  Executive officer

  1

  —

  8,967–11,301

  Senior clerical officer

  —

  1

  8,181–8,787

  Clerical officer

  —

  1

  4,308–8,007

  Clerk-typist

  1

  —

  4,308–8,007

  3

  12

  The Department of Education has made additional funds available to education and library boards for a number of new initiatives. The above posts will be funded by the Western education and library board from these funds and from the board's enhanced block grant allocation. The Western board will also consider the appointment of further staff in 1990–91 but decisions have not yet been taken about the number of grades of such additional staff.

  In addition, 10 field officers (teachers on short-term secondments) have been appointed to the Western board's advisory and support service in 1989–90; their salaries will continue to he paid directly by the Department.

ENERGY

  Southern Electricity
  Sir George Young
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy when he will announce the names of the chairman and members of the Southern Electricity consumers committee.

  Mr. Baldry
  The appointment of the chairman of the electricity consumers committee for the Southern region is a matter for the Director General of Electricity Supply in consultation with the Secretary of State and an announcement is expected shortly. The consumers committee members will be appointed by the director general in consultation with the chairman.

  Licensed Mines
  Mr. Anthony Coombs
  To ask the Secretry of State for Energy when British Coal's annual report on developments in licensed mines will be made available.

  Mr. Wakeham
  The first of British Coal's annual reports on developments in licensed mines has been received, and copies have been placed in the Libraries of both Houses.

PRIME MINISTER

  "British Briefing"
  Mr. Madden
  To ask the Prime Minister what correspondence she or her officials have had concerning the publication "British Briefing"; and if she will make a statement.

  The Prime Minister
  None, so far as I am aware.

  Correspondence
  Mr. Madden
  To ask the Prime Minister what correspondence she or her officials have had with(a) Mr. David Hart and (b) Mr. Charles Powell; and if she will make a statement.

  The Prime Minister
  I have nothing further to add to the reply that I gave the hon. Member for Sunderland, South (Mr. Mullin) on 21 December 1989 at column 365.

  "Codename Badger"
  Mr. Allason
  To ask the Prime Minister whether her authorisation was sought prior to the publication in America of "Codename Badger" by John Cottell.

  The Prime Minister
  No.

  Mr. Colin Wallace
  Mr. Madden
  To ask the Prime Minister if she will list by name and post all former or current Crown servants referred to in the material passed to her by Mr. Colin Wallace; and if she will make a statement.

  The Prime Minister
  No.

  Mr. Madden
  To ask the Prime Minister if she will list by name and post all those former or current Crown servants who were in any way responsible for supervising the activities of Mr. Colin Wallace whilst he served with Army Intelligence in Northern Ireland or at any other time; and if she will make a statement.

  The Prime Minister
  No.

  Drugs
  Sir Geoffrey Finsberg
  To ask the Prime Minister if she has any proposals to improve inter-departmental co-operation in the field of drugs; and if the Government will now ratify the 1988 United Nations convention against drugs.

  The Prime Minister
  Government policy for tackling drug misuse and trafficking is co-ordinated through the ministerial group on the misuse of drugs, chaired by the Minister of State, Home Office, my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Putney (Mr. Mellor).
  799
  Provisions have been introduced in the Criminal Justice (International Co-operation) Bill to enable us to ratify the 1988 United Nations convention against the illicit traffic in narcotic drugs and psychotropic substances.

ENVIRONMENT

  Domestic and Special Waste
  Dr. Kim Howells
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list, by name and location, mineshafts currently in use as dumps for domestic waste and special waste.

  Mr. Trippier
  [holding answer 7 February 1990]: My Department has records of six mineshafts in England and Wales being used to accept controlled waste. These are listed in the table. None of these facilities accepts domestic wastes, and only some may accept special waste. The local waste disposal authority can advise as to the current status of each facility:

  ICI Ltd.

  Holford Brine Cavities

  Northwich

  Cheshire

  Severn Trent Water

  Hawkwell Shaft

  Nailbridge

  Gloucestershire

  ICI Ltd.

  Brine Cavity

  Stalmine

  Hambleton

  Lancashire

  Effluent Disposal Ltd.

  Empire Brickworks, Stubbers Green Road

  Aldridge, Walsall

  West Midlands

  Frost and Sons (Moxley) Ltd.

  Falcon Galvanising

  Holyhead Road

  Moxley

  Walsall

  West Midlands

  J. B. and S. Lees Ltd.

  Albion Road

  West Bromwich

  Sandwell

  West Midlands

  Rebates and Homing Benefit
  Sir Peter Hordern
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will publish a table showing the total cost of rent and rate rebate, and of housing benefit, in each of the last five years.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  I have been asked to reply.

  The information requested is shown in the table. The expenditure shown for rent and rebates is also included in the housing benefit total.

  Housing Benefit Expenditure 1985–86 to 1989–90

  £ million

  1985–86

  1986–87

  1987–88

  1988–89

  1989–90

  Rent rebate

  2,292

  2,420

  2,528

  2,661

  2,855

  Rate rebate

  1,479

  1,635

  1,714

  1,373

  1,483

  Total housing benefit expenditure

  4,609

  5,009

  5,289

  5,074

  5,592

  800
  Notes: Rates rebates for 1989–90 include community charge rebates in Scotland.

  Source: Public Expenditure White Paper 1990.

  Property Services Agency
  Mr. Livsey
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many job losses he expects to occur when the Property Services Agency and Crown Suppliers are privatised.

  Mr. Chope
  The sales of PSA and TCS should not cause job losses. Thereafter employment levels will depend on the success of the privatised organisations.

LORD PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL

  Fair Employment Bill
  Mr. John D. Taylor
  To ask the Lord President of the Council on what date the House gave a Third Reading to the Fair Employment (Northern Ireland) Bill 1989.

  Sir Geoffrey Howe
  This information is available in the Journal of the House of Commons.

SOCIAL SECURITY

  Housing Benefit
  Mrs. Gorman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will estimate the number of new claims for housing benefit received from young people in London for the most recent 12-month period for which figures are available.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  I regret that the information collected does not allow particular client groups to be identified.

  Mentally Handicapped People
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many mentally handicapped people he estimates will benefit from the proposals outlined in "The Way Ahead: Benefits for Disabled People".

  Mr. Scott
  Our data sources do not enable us to isolate the number of mentally handicapped people who will gain from the changes to existing social security benefits detailed in "The Way Ahead: Benefits for Disabled People". The number of mentally handicapped people who will benefit from the introduction of the two new benefits, a disability allowance and a disability employment credit, will depend on the precise details of these benefits on which further work has yet to be done.

  Income Support
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what are the latest figures for the number of income support claimants with deductions for(a) electricity debts, (b) gas debts, (c) water debts and (d) social fund loan repayments.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  Figures for the number of income support claimants with deductions for electricity and gas debts are contained in table 10 of the "Department of Social Security Income Support Statistics Annual
  801
  Statistical Enquiry, May 1988", a copy of which has been placed in the Library. Figures are not collected for deductions for water debts. Deductions are not all for debt: some are for current consumption only.

  In December 1989 there was a total of 391,000 people making social fund loan repayments for 344,000 budgeting loans and 47,000 crisis loans. These figures relate to applicants who were in receipt of income support when the loan was taken out. Some may since have ceased to be in receipt of income support.

  Attendance Allowance
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what would be the net cost or saving resulting from the introduction of a common waiting period of three months for attendance and mobility allowance in place of the present six months' waiting period for attendance allowance(a) for all claimants and (b) for those aged under 65 years.

  Mr. Scott
  It is estimated that, taking into account the full effect of the removal of the six-month waiting period for attendance allowance for people who are terminally ill, the net effect on expenditure would be(a) an increase of about £120 million a year and (b) an increase of about £10 million a year.

  Bronchitis and Emphysema
  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what funds he will commit to undertake research which would allow a reassessment of the decision of the Industrial Injuries Advisory Council not to distinguish between the development of chronic bronchitis or emphysema through smoking and that brought on by exposure to substances associated with the processing, smelting, working or production of steel.

  Mr. Scott
  It is not the practice of this Department to fund medical research into diseases which may be occupationally related.

  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will ask the Industrial Injuries Advisory Council to reassess its previous decisions relating to the acceptance of work-related causes for steel workers developing chronic bronchitis and emphysema.

  Mr. Scott
  The Industrial Injuries Advisory Council's report of May 1988 on bronchitis and emphysema (Cm. 379) concluded that it was not possible on the available evidence to recommend prescription of these diseases in their own right. The council intends to review this subject again when further evidence is available.

  National Insurance Contributions
  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what would be the cost of abolishing the 2 per cent. rate of national insurance contribution below £46 a week in 1990–91.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  National insurance contributions are not payable on earnings that do not reach the lower earnings limit (£46 per week from April 1990). On the basis of assumptions contained in the report by the Government Actuary on the drafts of the Social Security Benefits Up-rating Order 1990 and the Social Security 802
  (Contributions) (Re-rating) Order 1990 (Cm 948), the cost of abolishing the 2 per cent. rate of national insurance contributions in 1990–91 would be £890 million. This figure relates to Great Britain.

  Earnings
  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what percentage of average male earnings the upper earnings limit represents; and what percentage it represented in each year since 1978–79.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  The information is in the table:

  Average male earnings1 £

  Upper earnings limit for class 1 NICs £

  Percentage of average earnings Per cent.

  April 1978

  89·10

  120·00

  134·7

  April 1979

  101·40

  135·00

  133·1

  April 1980

  124·50

  165·00

  132·5

  April 1981

  140·50

  200·00

  142·3

  April 1982

  154·50

  220·00

  142·4

  April 1983

  167·50

  235·00

  140·3

  April 1984

  178·80

  250.00

  139·8

  April 1985

  192·40

  265·00

  137·7

  April 1986

  207·50

  285·00

  137·3

  April 1987

  224·00

  295·00

  131·7

  April 1988

  245·80

  305·00

  124·1

  April 1989

  269·50

  325·00

  120·6

  1 Average earnings of all adult male workers.

  Source: Social Security Statistics 1989.

HEALTH

  Emergency Service
  Mr. John Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health whether the full cost of both police service and Army assistance will be charged to the National Health Service.

  Mr. Kenneth Clarke
  The reasonable cost of police and Army assistance in the current dispute will be met by those regions benefiting from the service, which will also of course have offsetting savings on salaries and fuel costs.

  Eye Tests
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what amount of the additional revenue raised by the £10 charge for sight tests has been allocated to the National Health Service.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  As from 1 April 1989, free NHS sight tests ceased to be generally available except to young people, those in respect of certain social security benefits or assessed as being on low incomes, and people with certain medical needs. The savings, estimated at £70 million in a full year, which have been generated from the reduced number of NHS sight tests to be paid for have been used to fund other areas of primary health care.

  Hormone Replacement Therapy
  Mr. Ashley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will commission an independent study of the health advantages of the wider use of hormone replacement therapy.
  803
  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  I refer the right hon. Member to the reply that I gave my hon. Friend the Member for Billericay (Mrs. Gorman) on 18 January at column 403.

  The main agency through which the Government fund bio-medical and clinical research is the Medical Research Council (MRC). The MRC receives its grant in aid from the Department of Education and Science. The MRC has set up a sub-group of its physiological systems board to review the need for further research on osteoporosis. This group is examining the feasibility of mounting a multicentre prospective trial of screening methods to identify at risk women who are likely to benefit from hormone replacement therapy. The MRC is always willing to consider scientifically sound proposals for research which will be considered in competition with other applications.

  Mr. Ashley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what advice, and from whom, he has received about the side effects and long-term risks of hormone replacement therapy when the hormone is taken over a long period;

  (2) what advice he has received about the effectiveness of hormone replacement therapy in preventing osteoporosis in women; and from whom;

  (3) what information he has on the benefits and risks of hormone replacement therapy.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  The Department obtains its advice and information on hormone replacement therapy (HRT) and osteoporosis from experts and advisers working in the field and from published work in the scientific press. It also receives advice from working groups set up by professional or other bodies such as the Royal College of Physicians working group on fractured neck of femur.

  Recently the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists was given funds by the Department towards the funding of a study group of experts on HRT and osteoporosis.

  HRT has a role to play in the prevention of osteoporosis and the treatment of menopausal symptoms; it is also possible that HRT may lead to a reduction in heart disease and strokes. However, since there may be risks, such as a possible increased risk of developing breast cancer, as well as benefits associated with its use, the individual patient's suitability for HRT is a matter for the clinical judgment of her doctor.

  In the past HRT has been associated with an increased risk of cancer of the womb; however, it is believed that HRT containing combined oestrogen-progestogen substantially reduces this risk.

  Mr. Ashley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what is the current cost to the National Health Service of hormone replacement therapy; and what the cost would be if all women aged between 50 and 60 years took the treatment;

  (2) what is the estimated number of women having hormone replacement therapy; and what percentage this is of the women at risk of osteoporosis.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  Information is not available in the form requested. Hormone replacement therapy (HRT) can be administered in a variety of forms. The current cost to the NHS in England and Wales of oral HRT prescriptions is around £4 million per annum. This figure does not include women using implants or stick-on patches or who receive HRT on private prescriptions.
  804
  The Department has recently agreed to fund an economic evaluation of HRT, which will look at its costs and benefits in relation to osteoporosis, cardiovascular disease and breast cancer.

  Mr. Ashley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what research has been undertaken into a possible link between hormone replacement therapy and increased cancers.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  I refer the right hon. Member to the reply that my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State gave to the hon. Member for Antrim, East (Mr. Beggs) on 12 December 1989 at column 627.

  The Department of Health is about to commission a review of osteoporosis and related problems which will investigate the statistical association between hormone replacement therapy and cancer risk.

  Clinical Research
  Mr. Ashley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what discussions he has had with medical research charities about the effect of the National Health Service reorganisation on clinical research carried out in National Health Service hospitals.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  Officials have met representatives of the Association of Medical Research Charities and some individual charities and have explained the measures that we are taking to ensure the continuation of high quality research in the NHS.

  Imperial Cancer Research Fund
  Mr. Ashley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he has had discussions with the Imperial Cancer Research Fund regarding subsidies from the fund to National Health Service hospitals to pay for patient care; and if he will make a statement.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  Officials have discussed this issue with representatives of the Imperial Cancer Research Fund.

  Hospital Trusts
  Mr. Ashley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) if he will prepare guidance and provide funds for the new National Health Service hospital trusts to ensure that their participation in clinical research is not diminished by their new status;

  (2) what steps he is taking to ensure that the necessary facilities for teaching and research will continue to be provided on a long-term basis for medical and scientific professors and readers holding honorary appointments in the hospitals which are interested in becoming National Health Service hospital trusts.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  Guidance on applications for NHS trust status make it clear that plans for involvement in research should be clearly set out. Orders establishing trusts will specify research as a function of individual trusts where it already plays a major part. The National Health Service and Community Care Bill provides explicit powers for NHS trusts to engage in research and support research by others and for the existence of reserve powers to ensure continued involvement in research.
  805
  In addition to money provided through contracts between purchasers and providers, funds will be available through SIFT: a similar scheme is being developed for non-teaching locations to meet the excess service costs to the NHS of research by universities and others. These should provide that hospitals will not become uncompetitive as a result of their involvement in research.

  Mr. Ashley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what discussions he has had with university authorities regarding the provision of research and teaching facilities for academic staff in the National Health Service hospitals that have expressed an interest in becoming National Health Service hospital trusts.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  University authorities have been represented at meetings with officials at which these issues have been discussed, notably in the steering group on undergraduate medical and dental education.

  Mr. Ashley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health which of the teaching hospitals that have expressed an interest in becoming a National Health Service hospital trust currently have medical and scientific professors and readers holding honorary appointments; and what is the total number of such professors and readers.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  All teaching hospitals might be expected to have medical and scientific professors and readers holding honorary appointments working in them. Medical teaching and research now takes place in many locations outside the main university hospitals. Details of honorary appointments are not held centrally.

  Patient Care
  Mr. Ashley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if the National Health Service retains its customary obligation to fund patient care when patients in National Health Service hospitals are participating in charitably funded research studies.

  Mr. Freeman
  There is a presumption that health authorities should meet the costs of care where the treatment involved forms part of the service which an authority would normally be expected to provide. The district health authority must, however, retain the final decision on how its funds can best be spent in the interests of its patients.

  Bronchitis and Emphysema
  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health at what cost and by which research institutions work has been undertaken into distinguishing between the contribution of tobacco smoke and exposure to substances arising from steel production to the development of chronic bronchitis and emphysema.

  Mr. Freeman
  The Department of Health has not commissioned any research into the specific areas mentioned by the hon. Member.

  The Medical Research Council (MRC) is the main agency through which the Government fund bio-medical and clinical research in the United Kingdom. The MRC receives its grant in aid from the Department of Education and Science. I understand that the MRC has in the past conducted research into these diseases. The MRC is always willing to consider scientifically sound proposals for research which will be considered in competition with other applications.

  Nursing Homes (Prescriptions)
  Mr. Morley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what steps he has taken to check prescriptions taken to dispensing chemists on behalf of elderly residents in private nursing homes are not misused;

  (2) what steps he has taken to ensure surplus prescribed drugs in private nursing homes are not stockpiled for unauthorised use.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  The Registered Homes Act 1984 requires the registering district health authority to inspect private nursing homes at least twice each year to ensure that adequate arrangements exist for the recording, safekeeping, handling and disposal of drugs held. Prescribed medicines may be obtained only on the authorisation of a qualified and experienced pharmacist employed by the nursing home and countersigned by a doctor or dentist. It is for the dispensing chemist to satisfy himself as to the appropriateness of each prescription for drugs. Medicines dispensed to individual patients must be given to the patient on discharge or otherwise destroyed in the presence of a patient or relation.

  NHS Price Indices
  Mr. Robin Cook
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will publish in the Official Report tables 13·3 and 13·21 of Cm. 1013 adjusted by the appropriate National Health Service price indices.

  Mr. Freeman
  [holding answer 5 February 1990]: It is not possible to reproduce tables 13.3 and 13.21 of Cm. 1013 adjusted in the manner requested, for the following reasons:

  i. no price indices exist for the NHS in the United Kingdom as a whole;

  ii. no specific price indices are available for the following categories of expenditure in England:

  —central health and miscellaneous services;

  —departmental administration;

  —family practitioner services administration;

  —family practitioner services capital;

  iii. as no estimate is made of NHS pay and price inflation before the end of the current financial year it is not possible to adjust figures for 1989–90 to 1992–93.

  Details of the relevant pay and price deflators for HCHS current and capital and FPS current expenditure in England between 1984–85 and 1988–89 are shown in the table, together with an index for the NHS in England based on a weighted average of these indices:

  NHS pay and price inflation 1984–85 to 1988–89

  HCHS Current

  HCHS Capital

  FPS Current

  NHS Total

  1988–89

  100·0

  100·0

  100·0

  100·0

  1987–88

  110·5

  105·8

  109·6

  110·0

  1986–87

  119·5

  111·2

  117·2

  118·7

  1985–86

  128·2

  116·8

  123·3

  126·3

  1984–85

  134·8

  123·6

  129·4

  132·9

  NHS Doctors
  Mr. Robin Cook
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list, by grade, the numbers of doctors working for the National Health Service, including consultants with part-time contracts, for each year since 1979.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  [holding answer 8 February 1990]: The information is given in the table:

  807

  Hospital medical staff as at 30 September each year England

  1979

  1980

  1981

  1982

  1983

  1984

  1985

  1986

  1987

  1988

  Percentage increase 1979 to 1988

  All staff

  39,859

  40,757

  41,169

  42,147

  42,709

  42,728

  43,495

  43,992

  43,957

  45,574

  14

  Consultant

  11,891

  12,134

  12,397

  12,603

  12,892

  13,185

  13,458

  13,785

  13,992

  14,429

  21

  Associate Specialist

  935

  967

  939

  954

  939

  906

  849

  809

  792

  779

  -17

  Senior Registrar

  2,724

  2,855

  2,935

  2,951

  3,084

  2,988

  3,132

  3,253

  3,215

  3,182

  17

  Registrar

  5,457

  5,552

  5,857

  5,771

  5,821

  5,755

  5,749

  5,849

  5,873

  6,146

  13

  Senior House Officer

  8,880

  9,197

  9,453

  9,514

  9,627

  9,589

  9,792

  9,690

  9,457

  9,960

  12

  House Officer

  2,610

  2,654

  2,716

  2,710

  2,826

  2,773

  2,838

  2,813

  2,790

  2,862

  10

  Other staff

  110

  116

  121

  82

  49

  142

  41

  79

  93

  62

  -44

  Hospital Practitioner

  601

  725

  845

  848

  882

  903

  845

  850

  894

  853

  -42

  Para 94 appointments

  6,651

  6,557

  6,556

  6,714

  6,589

  6,487

  6,791

  6,864

  6,851

  7,301

  10

  Includes permanent paid and honorary staff.

  From 1987 Senior Hospital Medical Officers with allowance are included with 'Other staff.

  Community health service medical staff as at 30 September each year England

  1979

  1980

  1981

  1982

  1983

  1984

  1985

  1986

  1987

  1988

  Percentage increase 1979 to 1988

  All staff

  5,885

  5,981

  6,035

  6,171

  6,331

  6,156

  6,145

  6,032

  6,297

  6,155

  5

  Includes permanent paid and honorary staff.

  General Medical Practitioner as at 1 October each year England

  1979

  1980

  1981

  1982

  1983

  1984

  1985

  1986

  1987

  1988

  Percentage increase 1979 to 1988

  All staff

  23,062

  23,674

  24,359

  24,835

  25,341

  25,788

  26,190

  26,529

  27,023

  27,420

  19

  Footnote:

  Any staff holding appointments in these grades and additionally working as general medical practitioner (GMP) will also appear in the GMP table.

WALES

  Community Health Councils
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will address an all-Wales conference of community health councils concerning his plans to reduce the number of community health councils in Wales; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Grist
  We are always prepared to consider requests to attend conferences, subject to parliamentary and other commitments. I have in fact agreed to address the annual conference of the Association of Community Health Councils for England and Wales in Swansea in July.

  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will meet(a) Clwyd South CHC and (b) Clwyd North community health council to discuss his Department's plans to merge Clwyd South and Clwyd North community health councils.

  Mr. Grist
  The consultation period on the Government's proposals for CHCs in Wales runs until the end of February 1990. Most CHCs have yet to respond and I have no plans to meet CHCs on an individual basis at present.

  Football Grounds (Safety)
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he has assessed the implications for international soccer matches played in Wales arising from the Government's policy for the safety of football grounds in the wake of the Taylor report.

  Mr. Grist
  I refer the hon. Gentleman to the statement made by my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for the Home Department to the House on 29 January and to the schedule placed in the Library.

  The Government accept, in principle, the recommendations of Lord Justice Taylor's final report. Consultations will take place with the appropriate representative bodies on the implementation, as necessary, of the recommendations.

  Historic Monuments
  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what has been the total annual income and the income from grant in aid of Cadw: Welsh Historic Monuments from 1984–85 to 1990–91.

  Mr. Wyn Roberts
  The table shows actual income received by Cadw for 1984–85 to 1988–89, provisional estimates 1989–90 and planned income for 1990–91:
  809

  £000

  1984–85 out turn

  1985–86 out turn

  1986–87 out turn

  1987–88 out turn

  1988–89 out turn

  1989–90 estimate

  1990–911 estimate

  Total Cadw receipts

  949

  1,361

  1,517

  1,797

  2,291

  2,170

  2,870

  Income received from Cadw's presentation activities (included in above total)

  949

  1,361

  1,515

  1,783

  2,275

  2,155

  2,850

  1 Subject to parliamentary approval of the Supply Estimate.

  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what was the amount paid by Cadw: Welsh Historic Monuments by category of grant in each year since 1984–85; what is the budget for 1989–90; and what is the estimate for 1990–91.

  Gross expenditure on grants by Cadw

  £000

  1984–85 out turn

  1985–86 out turn

  1986–87 out turn

  1987–88 out turn

  1988–89 out turn

  1989–90 estimate

  1990–911 estimate

  HBC grants

  1,424

  2,087

  1,889

  2,061

  2,194

  3,000

  3,187

  Ancient monuments grants:

  Grants to owners

  44

  135

  204

  131

  202

  165

  250

  Grants to trusts

  413

  398

  450

  522

  605

  635

  715

  RCAHM(W)

  538

  550

  608

  711

  655

  715

  830

  1 The provision for 1990–91 is subject to parliamentary approval.

  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales which bodies received grant aid from Cadw: Welsh Historic Monuments annually from 1984–85 to 1989–90; and what were the amounts involved.

  £000

  1984–85 out turn

  1985–86 out turn

  1986–87 out turn

  1987–88 out turn

  1988–89 out turn

  1989–90 forecast

  RCAHM (W)

  538

  550

  608

  711

  655

  715

  Archaeological trusts

  413

  398

  450

  522

  605

  635

  CTW

  —

  —

  —

  —

  25

  25

  Severn Crossing and Barrage
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will meet the South Wales standing conference on regional policy to discuss(a) the second Severn crossing and (b) outline plans for a Severn barrage; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Wyn Roberts
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has already agreed to meet the South Wales standing conference on regional policy to discuss the proposals for a second Severn crossing. This meeting will be arranged once the successful tenderer is known. It is open to the standing conference to request that the agenda be extended to include the Severn barrage.

  River Dee Crossing
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will meet Clwyd county council to discuss plans for the proposed new River Dee crossing; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Wyn Roberts
  The scheme has been conditionally accepted in the transport grant settlement for 1990–91. Its progress is a matter for the county council.
  810
  Mr. Wyn Roberts
  The information requested is 10 be found in the table:

  Mr. Wyn Roberts
  The only bodies Cadw specifically grant-aided are: Royal Commission on Ancient and Historical Monuments in Wales (RCAHM (W)), the four archaeological trusts and the Civic Trust for Wales (CTW). The grant figures for each of the years requested are as follows:

  Coal Mines (Applications)
  Dr. Kim Howells
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many applications for(a) private opencast coal mines and (b) private underground coal mines have been received via British Coal or otherwise by the Welsh Office since 1 February 1989.

  Mr. Peter Walker
  None. The responsibility for the issuing of licenses for the extraction of coal either by opencast or deep mining methods, by private companies, rests solely with British Coal.

  Landfill Sites
  Dr. Kim Howells
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what is the estimated average cost, per site, of remedial work required to safeguard landfill sites in Wales, including the costs associated with the investigation of geology and hydrogeology necessary as a precursor to such remedial work.

  Mr. Grist
  The estimation of costs is a matter for the operator of the site. As an approximate indicator Her Majesty's inspectorate of pollution has adopted an average sum of £250,000 when assessing the likely resource implications of landfill gas control.

  Clwyd Language Centre
  Dr. Kim Howells
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what is the level of financial support earmarked by the Welsh Office for the Clwyd language centre, Canolfan Laith Clwyd, in the coming financial year.

  Mr. Wyn Roberts
  Canolfan Laith Clwyd is one of many organisations that have applied for grant support next year. Whether they have been successful will be announced in due course.

  Teachers' Pay
  Dr. Kim Howells
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what provision has been made for increases in school teachers' pay in the standard spending assessments for 1990–91; what percentage increase this represents; how this provision has been calculated; how this provision is related to the remit given to the interim advisory committee; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Peter Walker
  Under the local authority revenue settlement for 1990–91 provision for total standard spending (TSS) is 9·4 per cent. over the equivalent figure for 1989–90 and 7·1 per cent. over local authorities' 1989–90 budgets. The remit given to the IAC was allowed for in full and the effect of the IAC's proposals on the community charge for standard spending is thus minimal. Standard spending assessments for individual local authorities are based on TSS but are not hypothecated to particular services. Further information about the settlement is provided in the reports approved by the House on 24 January 1990.

  Community Care
  Mr. Michael
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what financial contribution he intends to make available to housing associations in Wales in order to enable them to make the contribution he expects from them towards implementation of the community care White Paper in respect of(a) elderly and very elderly people and (b) disabled people.

  Mr. Grist
  The Department makes funding available to Housing for Wales in support of housing associations within the Principality: for this purpose gross provision for 1990–91 will be raised by 40 per cent. over that for 1989–90. As to the future we have made it clear in draft planning guidance recently issued for consultation, that as a first step we expect housing associations to be consulted closely in the development of social care plans and to maintain and develop their crucial role—working within supporting guidance set out by Housing for Wales.

  Mr. Michael
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what financial contribution he intends to make available to local authorities in Wales in order to enable them to make the contribution he expects from them towards implementation of the community care White Paper in respect of(a) elderly and very elderly people and (b) disabled people.

  Mr. Grist
  The position in respect of funding the new framework for community care in Wales is fully set out in paragraphs 11.34 to 11.41 of the White Paper "Caring for People" Cm. 849. In addition, we are to make available in 812
  each of the financial years 1990–91 and 1991–92 some £330,000 which will be used towards the costs of demonstration projects in each of the Welsh counties the aim of which will be to help authorities establish effective assessment and case management arrangements.

  Mr. Michael
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales whether he will make it his policy that Government contributions to support people living in homes for the elderly in Wales shall be calculated on the same basis, irrespective of whether the home is run by a local authority, a voluntary or charitable body, or on a private commercial basis.

  Mr. Grist
  Our policies for the future funding of care in the community are fully set out in the White Paper "Caring for People: Community Care in the Next Decade and Beyond" Cm. 849.

  Mr. Michael
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what guidance he has offered to housing associations in Wales on the contribution he expects them to make towards the provision of suitable homes for(a) disabled people and (b) elderly and very elderly people as part of the implementation of community care policies outlined in his recent White Paper.

  Mr. Grist
  I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply given to him on 8 February.

  Inspector of Schools Report
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales when he expects to receive Her Majesty's inspector of schools Wales annual report; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Wyn Roberts
  We have received the report and propose to publish it next week.

  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales (1) if he will make it his policy to convene a conference in Wales of local education authorities, parent-teachers associations and teacher unions to discuss Her Majesty's inspectorate of schools report of 5 February;

  (2) what initiatives he will take consequent upon the publication on 5 February of Her Majesty's inspectorate of schools report.

  Mr. Wyn Roberts
  The report of Her Majesty's inspectorate of schools which was published on 5 February related to England only.

  Queensferry High School, Clwyd
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will meet the Clwyd local education authority to discuss the future of Queensferry high school.

  Mr. Wyn Roberts
  Should the LEA publish a statutory notice affecting the future of the school and there are statutory objections, the matter falls to my right hon. Friend for determination.

  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will visit Queensferry high school to meet(a) staff members and (b) the parent-teachers association.

  Mr. Wyn Roberts
  I refer the hon. Gentleman to the answer that I gave him on 7 February 1990.

  Dyslexic Children
  Mr. Roy Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales (1) if he has issued any guidance to local education authorities concerning early diagnosis of dyslexic children;

  (2) what arrangements have been made for the diagnosis of pre-school children who suffer from dyslexia;

  (3) what steps he is taking to support the role of local health and local education authorities in the teaching of dyslexic children.

  Mr. Wyn Roberts
  The Education Act 1981 imposes duties on local education authorities to identify, assess and make appropriate provisions for children with special educational needs, including dyslexics. For children under five, the Act places a duty on health authorities to inform parents when they are of the view that a child has, or is likely to have, special educational needs and, after discussion, to bring that view to the attention of the LEA. Welsh Office circular 54/89 gives guidance to LEAs on special educational needs and stresses the importance of early identification of any difficulties. The national curriculum will apply to all children, including dyslexics, as far as is practicable.

  Mr. Roy Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales (1) what advice he is issuing to local education authorities concerning the training of teachers of dyslexic children;

  (2) what proposals he has to increase the number of teachers trained to teach dyslexic children.

  Mr. Wyn Roberts
  The new criteria for the training of teachers, set out in Welsh Office circular 59/89, have been designed to ensure that students, on completion of their course, should be able to identify pupils with special educational needs or with learning difficulties; and that they should understand the way in which the potential of such pupils can be developed.

  There is provision within the local education authority training grants scheme for the training of existing teachers to enable them to offer advice to colleagues on meeting the special educational needs of children in ordinary schools. A draft Welsh Office circular will issue for consultation shortly, offering guidance on staffing for pupils with special educational needs generally.

CIVIL SERVICE

  Representations (Nottinghamshire)
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Minister for the Civil Service if he will list the representations and the subjects in each case which he has received from Nottinghamshire on matters within his responsibility up to 7 February.

  Mr. Luce
  I am not aware of any such representations.

DEFENCE

  Community Charge
  Mr. Rooker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what guidance he has issued to the armed services on the status as students for community charge purposes of members of Her Majesty's forces undergoing training; and if he will estimate numbers of(a) trainees at Her Majesty's
  814
  forces establishments and (b) members of Her Majesty's forces attending courses at institutions of further and higher education who will be classified as students for poll tax purposes.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  We have promulgated information about the classification as students of personnel on long training courses at RAF Halton, and asked other training establishments to seek such classification for other similar categories. As decisions on classification are taken by community charge registration officers on the basis of all the relevant facts, I cannot estimate how many members of Her Majesty's forces will eventually be classified as students.

  Computer Security
  Mr. Colvin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what steps his Department has taken and is taking to improve the security of its computer systems.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  For unclassified but sensitive systems Departments are expected to follow Central Computer and Telecommunications Agency (CCTA) guidance covering all aspects of IT security, and the application of this has been tightened recently. CCTA advice is kept under continuous review and is based upon the analysis of security risks and requirements using structured methods such as the CCTA risk analysis and management methodology (CRAMM), which has also been made commercially available.

  For classified systems more stringent conditions apply. MOD computer security staff continuously review the Department's computer security policy and its application to ensure that constant and adequate levels of protection are provided for those systems processing or holding classified material. In the interests of national security the nature and extent of the security countermeasures utilised to protect classified MOD computer systems cannot be revealed.

  Preventable Loss
  Mr. Norris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what assessment he has made of the extent of preventable loss arising from theft or misappropriation in his Department.

  Mr. Neubert
  Causes of theft or misappropriation in the Ministry of Defence are centrally recorded and, where appropriate, published in the losses statement attached to the appropriation accounts. In the light of analysis of individual cases, systems and procedures are changed as necessary.

  Mr. Norris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence whether he will list the number of professionally qualified loss prevention staff employed by his Department and the qualifications held by such staff, excluding qualifications obtained during police or military service.

  Mr. Neubert
  Responsibility for the prevention of loss, as for all matters of regularity and propriety, including the development, introduction and operation of internal control systems, rests with line managers. There are no staff employed specifically on loss prevention.

  Household Division
  Sir Alan Glyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list(a) the duties of the Household Division apart from ceremonial duties and (b) the areas in which units are serving and have served in recent years.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  The Household Division comprises both cavalry and infantry regiments and undertakes a wide range of duties outside its ceremonial functions. The division has eight battalions of foot guards, all of which undertake regular infantry tasks both in the United Kingdom and around the world. Recently this has meant units serving as far afield as Cyprus, Belize, Berlin, Gibraltar and Northern Ireland. Units are presently deployed at various locations in the United Kingdom, West Germany and Berlin. The division's two regiments of cavalry alternate between tours of duty with the British Army of the Rhine and 5 Airborne Brigade at Windsor.

  Submarines
  Mr. Boyes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many(a) nuclear-powered hunter killer and (b) Polaris submarines have been withdrawn from duties or recalled from patrol following the recent discovery of faults in Royal Navy nuclear submarine reactors.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  I have nothing to add to the answers that I gave the hon. Member for St. Helens, North (Mr. Evans) on 5 February at column 460.

  Mr. Boyes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many submarines and of which types, were withdrawn from Soviet naval service in 1989; and what was the comparable figure for 1988.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  Over the past two years the Soviet Navy has embarked on a major force modernisation programme to rid its inventory of obsolete submarines. The rate at which units are being decommissioned and the numbers subsequently sold for scrapping in foreign shipyards has increased markedly during 1989. During that year the Soviets removed a total of at least 35 submarines from service compared with at least two in 1988. The vast majority of these units were the 1950s vintage WHISKEY class general purpose diesel submarines.

  Mr. Boyes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how much money has been spent so far on conceptual and design work on a new generation of hunter killer submarines for the Royal Navy.

  Mr. Neubert
  Concept studies were completed in 1985. Some £28 million at 1989–90 prices has been spent so far on feasibility studies for a new generation of hunter killer submarines for the Royal Navy.

  Mr. Boyes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if, as part of his policy of devolving budget responsibilities and allocating costs to users, he will instruct hunter killer submarine units to charge the Polaris force for anti-submarine protection services rendered.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  No.

  Mr. Boyes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence whether a Royal Navy Polaris submarine has ever been detected by Soviet forces while on patrol.
  816
  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  The Soviet Union has never to our knowledge detected one of our Polaris submarines on patrol.

  Naval Aircraft
  Mr. Boyes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list all major accidents to naval aircraft in 1989, giving the type, tail number, location, date and cause of accident in each case.

  Mr. Neubert
  All accidents to Royal Navy aircraft during 1989 are currently under official investigation. As such, details of the causes cannot be given. However, the remaining information is as follows:

  Aircraft type

  Tail No.

  Location

  Date

  Accidents to aircraft in flight

  Jetstream T2

  XX489

  Portland Harbour

  8 May 1989

  Lynx

  XZ244

  Kenya

  14 May 1989

  Sea King

  XV699

  Pont Henri, Llanelli

  5 June 1989

  Sea Fury FB11

  TF956

  Firth of Clyde

  10 June 1989

  Sea Harrier

  ZA191

  Lyme Bay

  4 October 1989

  Sea King

  XZ582

  Off Bermuda

  27 October 1989

  Sea Harrier

  XZ451

  Off Sardinia

  1 December 1989

  Accidents to aircraft on the ground/on board ship

  Sea King

  XV676

  Prestwick airport

  31 May 1989

  Sea Harrier

  XZ440

  Off Bermuda

  30 October 1989

  Naval Arms Control
  Mr. Boyes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on his policy in relation to naval arms control.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  NATO's current priorities in arms control were set out in "The Alliance's Comprehensive Concept" in May 1989. In the conventional field this called primarily for the establishment of a secure and stable balance of conventional forces in Europe at lower levels. Naval forces are, by the agreement of all parties, specifically excluded from the CFE negotiations.

  Soviet Aircraft
  Mr. Boyes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if Royal Air Force aircraft operating from United Kingdom bases have ever intercepted a Soviet backfire aircraft.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  It is not our practice to comment on operational matters.

  Soviet Warships
  Mr. Boyes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what information he has on how many port visits were made to non-Warsaw pact countries by Soviet warships in 1989; what proportion of these involved submarines; and what were the comparable figures for 1988.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  We are aware of 95 port visits made by Soviet warships to non-Warsaw pact countries in 1989; nine of these visits were by submarines.

  We recorded 125 port visits to non-Warsaw pact countries by Soviet warships in 1988, including 16 visits by submarines.

  Soviet Tanks
  Mr. Boyes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what information he has on the number of main battle tanks built by the Soviet Union in 1989; and what was the comparable figure for 1988.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  We believe that the Soviet Union produced approximately 3,500 tanks in 1988. Preliminary estimates suggest that tank production in 1989 may have been reduced to about half that level.

  Soviet Submarines
  Mr. Boyes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what information he has on the number of new nuclear-powered submarines which entered Soviet naval service in 1989; and what was the comparable figure for 1988.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  We believe that the USSR completed construction of five nuclear-powered sub-marines in 1988, and that a comparable level of output was maintained in 1989.

  Sea Harriers
  Mr. Boyes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what was the major accident rate per 10,000 flying hours for the Sea Harrier aircraft in 1989.

  Mr. Neubert
  Information for individual aircraft types is classified. However, the fixed-wing major accident rate for the Royal Navy, shortly to be published in the Statement on the Defence Estimates, is 1·52 per 10,000 hours.

EMPLOYMENT

  Labour Statistics
  Mr. John Marshall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will make a statement about trends in the level of unemployment in Greater London since 1985.

  Mr. Nicholls
  The information is available in the Library. In December 1989 the level of unemployment, seasonally adjusted, in the Greater London region was 201,300, a fall of 181,300, or 47·4 per cent. since December 1985.

  Mr. Oppenheim
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many people in Derbyshire are currently unemployed; and by what percentage this figure has changed in the last year.

  Mr. Nicholls
  The information is available in the Library. In December 1989 there were 23,537 unemployed claimants in Derbyshire. This figure represents a fall of 9,962 or 29·7 per cent.

  Mr. Yeo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will give the current rate of unemployment in the United Kingdom and list those member states of the European Community whose rate of unemployment is higher.

  Mr. Nicholls
  In December 1989, the seasonally adjusted unemployment rate in the United Kingdom was 818
  5·8 per cent. On the OECD international definition the unemployment rate is higher in Belgium, Denmark, France, Ireland, Spain, Greece, Italy and the Netherlands.

  Small Businesses
  Mr. Bellingham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many measures he has introduced to help small businesses during the course of this Parliament.

  Mr. Eggar
  My Department has made major improvements in the provision of training for small businesses with the introduction last April of business growth training (BGT). For small firms, BGT offers help for owner managers in producing better business and training plans; training for starting their own businesses; and training to improve the business skills of owner managers and to help the more ambitious achieve their plans for growth. This year BGT will offer 90,000 such opportunities to small firms. The Training Agency also sponsored the launch last month of the small business programme, and open learning initiative backed by the Open university and Cranfield School of Management.

  The groundwork has been laid for the new network of training and enterprise councils which will take over responsibility from the Training Agency for planning and delivering training for, and to support the development of, small businesses. They will be responsible both for encouraging more firms to invest in training and for enterprise activities designed to strengthen local economic growth.

  My Department has continued with its campaign to make Government procurement more accessible to small firms by simplifying purchasing practices and by improving their awareness of the benefits for small suppliers. We have updated the booklet "Tendering for Government Contracts" and published our advice to purchasing officers in "Think Big, Buy Small". Last December I appointed a consultant to work closely with the central unit of purchasing to further improve purchasing practices and to strengthen the monitoring of small firms involvement.

  In 1988 the Government published the booklet "Prompt Payment Please" as part of an initiative to encourage good payment practice in both large and small firms and to foster closer co-operation between buyers and suppliers. The booklet gives guidance to small firms on credit management and correct invoicing and to large firms on their responsibility to suppliers, particularly small firms. It was prepared in conjunction with the CBI, the Association of British Chambers of Commerce, the Institute of Directors and the Institute of Purchasing and Supply and has met with a positive response from both the public and private sectors.

  The local enterprise agency project scheme was introduced in April 1988 as part of the Action for Cities initiative. Grants have been made available to support project-based activity in approved enterprise agencies in any of the 57 urban programme authority areas. To date £729,893 has been given in support of 102 projects, with matched cash contributions of £914,734 from the private sector.

  Following a review, the loan guarantee scheme was improved in January 1988 by the introduction of a simplified application procedure for loans up to £15,000. In April 1989 the loan limit was increased from £75,000 to £100,000. These changes have led to a doubling of

  819
  applications for usage of the scheme, which are now running at 260 per month. In addition, in June 1988 the proportion guaranteed was increased from 70 per cent. to 85 per cent. for businesses in the 16 inner-city task force areas. In 1988–89, some 2,291 loans were guaranteed to the value of £64·76 million, compared to 1,234 loans totalling £46·23 million in the previous year.

  Earnings
  Mr. Dewar
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will publish a table showing average gross weekly earnings for full-time male employees on adult rates in Great Britain for every year from 1979 to the latest year for which figures are available.

  Mr. Nicholls
  The information requested is published in table 15 of part A of the 1989 new earnings survey report. A copy of the report is in the Library.

  Mr. Dewar
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what are the average gross hourly earnings in Great Britain for full-time manual workers, full-time non-manual workers, part-time manual workers and part-time non-manual workers, at the latest date for which figures are available.

  Mr. Nicholls
  The latest available information, for April 1989, is provided in the following table:

  Average gross hourly earnings (excluding overtime) of employees on adult rates

  £

  Full-time manual employees

  4·44

  Full-time non-manual employees

  6·83

  Part-time manual employees

  2·97

  Part-time non-manual employees

  4·23

  Bronchitis and Emphysema
  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will list the name of and amount of money invested in each research project into the effects of work in or around steel furnaces on the development of chronic bronchitis, emphysema or other related disorders.

  Mr. Nicholls
  The Health and Safety Executive has not directly funded any research into the effects of work in or around steel furnaces on the development of chronic bronchitis, emphysema or other disorders. The European Coal and Steel Community is now conducting its fifth programme of medical research into occupational ill-health. The Health and Safety Executive has been consulted about the contents of this research and is closely following the programme's progress.

SCOTLAND

  Training
  Mr. Dewar
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will estimate what proportion of their turnover firms in the private sector in Scotland spend on training.

  Mr. Rifkind
  It is not feasible to produce the information requested because many companies located in Scotland operate on a national or international basis and their Scottish training costs cannot be separately identified.
  820
  In connection with its major study "Training in Britain" the Training Agency commissioned an employers' activities study. The public and private sector employers in Scotland that responded to that study jointly spent £665 million on training in 1986–87.

  "Training in Britain" estimated that net training expenditure by British employers in 1986–87 was of the order of £18 billion; but was not able to relate this directly to turnover.

  Bed and Breakfast
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what are the latest figures for the number of people living in bed-and-breakfast accommodation.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  There are no figures available for the total number of people living in bed-and-breakfast accommodation. It is estimated, however, that the number of households placed in such accommodation by local authorities under the provisions of part II of the Housing (Scotland) Act 1987 was 295 at 30 September 1989.

  Student Teachers
  Mrs. Margaret Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what additional grant or bursary payments are made available to student teachers of mathematics, computing and design and technology in Scotland; and what rules and regulations apply to the receipt of such payments.

  Mr. Lang
  No such payments are made in Scotland.

  North East River Purification Board
  Mr. Salmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland (1) on how many occasions the Minister has met representatives of the North East River Purification Board in the last nine months; what subjects were discussed; and on what dates the meetings took place;

  (2) if he has received any correspondence from the North East River Purification Board concerning matters relating to the duties and structures of the board for which he is responsible; and whether he has received any representations on such matters.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The Secretary of State has not met representatives of the board in the past nine months. No representations have been received about the board's duties and structures; I have received a letter from the hon. Member about the responsibilities of the Secretary of State in this respect, to which I am replying. The clerk to the board wrote to the Department last October intimating the board's intention to restructure its management organisation. There is, of course, day-to-day official correspondence with the board on matters of mutual interest.

  Prisoners
  Dr. Godman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many complaints he has received from prisoners or from organisations concerned with prisons that hon. Members have not passed on prisoners' complaints to the parliamentary ombudsman.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  We have no record of receiving such a complaint.

  House Purchase
  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland (1) if he will publish a table showing the average income of first-time house buyers and average prices of houses in Scotland in 1989–90;

  (2) what is the average new mortgage in 1989–90 in Scotland.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The information is available for the first half of 1989–90 only. Details are set out in the table:

  First-time housebuyers £

  All housebuyers £

  Average income

  12,461

  —

  Average price of all dwellings

  23,152

  35,847

  Average new mortgage (advances)

  —

  25,893

  Source: DOE 5 per cent. sample survey of building society mortgages.

  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what is the average outstanding mortgage in 1989–90 in Scotland.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  This information is not held centrally.

  Skye (Transport)
  Mr. Bill Walker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement on the question of improved transport links to Skye.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  My noble Friend the Minister of State is today announcing that three consortia have been selected to tender for the provision of a privately financed bridge to Skye. Subject to obtaining the necessary powers and approvals, it is hoped that the fixed link will be open to traffic by the mid-1990s. For the interim period however, given the rising popularity of the Skye crossing, approval has also been given today for the replacement of the existing ferries by two new 36-car capacity vessels. Tenders to build will now be invited by Caledonian MacBrayne and it is expected that the vessels will enter service during 1991.

NATIONAL FINANCE

  Maintenance Funds
  Mr. William Powell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many applications for maintenance funds under the Finance Act 1982 have taken more than one year to process; and how many have taken more than two years.

  Mr. Lilley
  Of the applications for the establishment of a heritage maintenance fund which have been accepted, five have taken less than one year to process, four between one and two years and 47 more than two years.

  Mr. William Powell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many applications for maintenance funds under the Finance Act 1982 are currently under consideration.

  Mr. Lilley
  A total of 58 applications for the establishment of heritage maintenance funds are currently under consideration.
  822
  Mr. William Powell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many applications to establish maintenance funds have been made in each of the last two years.

  Mr. Lilley
  The total number of applications for the establishment of heritage maintenance funds received in the calendar years 1988 and 1989 was 13 and nine respectively.

  Mr. William Powell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many cases have occurred where permission has been given for the establishment of a maintenance fund under the Finance Act 1982 but where the fund has not thereafter been established with an endowment.

  Mr. Lilley
  The number of cases where a maintenance fund has not been established despite approval having been granted by the Inland Revenue or the Treasury is five.

  Mr. William Powell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many maintenance funds for heritage property have been established since the Finance Act 1982; and how many have an endowment of less than £20,000.

  Mr. Lilley
  A total number of 56 heritage maintenance funds have been established since the passage of the Finance Act 1982; of these four have an endowment which on establishment was less than £20,000.

  Mr. William Powell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many maintenance funds have been established under the Finance Act 1982 with more than one sector.

  Mr. Lilley
  Of the total of 56 maintenance funds established since the passage of the Finance Act 1982, 53 support heritage entities which include property designated under more than one of the categories contained in section 31(1) of the Inheritance Tax Act.

  Mr. William Powell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is the value of maintenance funds for heritage property established since the Finance Act 1982.

  Mr. Lilley
  It is not possible to provide a figure for the current value of property held by heritage maintenance funds.

  Tobacco
  Mr. Amos
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what recent representations he has received about the taxation of tobacco products.

  Mr. Ryder
  My right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer has received a large number of representations concerning the taxation of tobacco products.

  Interest Rates and Inflation
  Mr. John Evans
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what research he has undertaken on the relationship between interest rates and inflation rates in member states of the European Community.

  Mr. Ryder
  The experience of member states of the European Community confirms that an increase in interest rates is the appropriate response to inflationary pressures.

  Mortgage Interest Relief
  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many individuals are currently receiving mortgage interest tax relief; and what is the current cost to the Exchequer.

  Mr. Lilley
  It is estimated that 9·3 million tax units will have received mortgage interest relief in 1989–90, at a cost of £7 billion.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Electronic Tagging
  Mr. Bermingham
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) how many defendants have been electronically tagged since the scheme became operational; and how many of these defendants by each scheme have breached the conditions of their bail;

  (2) how much each electronic tag pilot cost to date;

  (3) when he will be publishing his research findings on the pilot electronic tag schemes;

  (4) whether there will be any further trials of the electronic tag as an alternative to remand in custody; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. John Patten
  The number of defendants electronically monitored and the number of breaches as at 30 January is set out in the table. Electronic monitoring cannot prevent breaches of bail, which are also committed by defendants on bail, subject to other conditions, but it does enable them to be detected.

  Trial area

  Total monitored

  Breaches1

  Nottingham

  17

  9

  North Tyneside

  13

  8

  Tower Bridge

  16

  7

  Total

  46

  24

  1 Includes defendants who have breached conditions of bail, been arrested for further offences or absconded.

  The cost of the contracts (including VAT) for each trial is as follows: Nottingham £145,529, North Tyneside £158,808, Tower Bridge £260,369.

  We expect to make available later this year an analysis of the outcome of the current trials.

  So far as further trials of electronic monitoring are concerned, I refer the hon. Member to the reply that I gave on 10 January to my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, East (Mr. Knowles) at column 626.

  Charities
  Mr. Michael Morris
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he will include the General Synod's miscellaneous paper 317 on new religious movements as evidence to the consultation process on his White Paper, "Charities—a Framework for the Future."

  Mr. Waddington
  I shall certainly do so.

AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

  Food Safety
  Mr. David Nicholson
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food whether he will list in the Official Report, those food research projects which the Agriculture and Food Research Council will cease to fund as a result of the planned closure of the Bristol laboratory of the Institute of Food Research; and if he will make a statement on the reasons for such rationalisation of projects.

  Mr. Curry
  The food research projects listed are those being carried out at IFR Bristol which have been identified as near market, that is, suitable for industrial support. Their funding by my Department is being phased out in 1989–90 during 1990–91.

  1. Effects of poultry breeding, husbandry, handling and processing on carcase composition and quality.

  2. Effects of breeding, husbandry, plant operations on processing quality turkey meat.

  3. Effects of frozen storage on quality and processing (meat)

  4. Carcase characteristics that determine value.

  5. Define processing conditions for optimum and consistent quality in meat products.

  6. Factors controlling meat restructuring processes.

  7. Protein solubilisation and adhesion of reformed meats.

  8. Heat and mass transfer in meat refrigeration.

  9. Temperature and mass change in meat cooking.

  10. Electrical stimulation, hot boning and accelerated ageing.

  11. Electrical stimulation, hot boning and processing properties of beef, pork and poultry.

  12. Meat process engineering.

  13. Robotics in meat handling and processing.

  14. Quality control, robotic vision and meat grading by video image analysis and fibre optics.

  15. Industrial developments and technology transfer.

  16. Carcase composition and meat quality in cattle.

  17. Carcase composition and meat quality in sheep.

  18. Techniques for assessment of carcase composition.

  19. Effects of pre-slaughter handling practices on value of carcase and fresh meat.

  20. Packaging techniques for improved storage and display.

  Mr. David Nicholson
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will specify the measures he is taking to ensure that public interest research and development on the safety and quality of foods, particularly meat and meat products, will not be diminished as a result of the closure of the Bristol laboratory of the Institute of Food Research in December 1990.

  Mr. Curry
  Public interest research and development on the safety of food is under way at the Norwich and Reading laboratories of the Institute of Food Research and will be increased following the reorganisation of the institute. In addition, MAFF is commissioning relevant work at Food Research Association and university departments. Food safety research of relevance to the meat industry is also being undertaken by the Ministry's own central veterinary laboratory and by the public health laboratory service.

  Mr. David Nicholson
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what consultations he has had, or proposes to have, with representations of consumer interests, the food manufacturing industry, the food retailing industry, and farmers, over the arrangements he is making to ensure that public interest research
  825
  and development into the safety and quality of food, particularly meat and meat products, will be retained after the closure of the Bristol laboratory of the Institute of Food Research.

  Mr. Curry
  The research consultative committee on food safety and applied nutrition which consists of representatives from consumer interests and the food manufacturing and the food retailing industries, recently reported to the Priorities Board on the priorities for public interest research in the safety of food, including meat, and discussions are under way with a wide range of contractors to implement these recommendations. This followed consultations with outside organisations, including the food manufacturing and the food retailing industries, on the priorities for food microbiology research in 1988–89. As a consequence, the Ministry commissioned a major strategic initiative in the area of food microbiology research and development at various institutes throughout the United Kingdom.

  Mr. David Nicholson
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food whether he anticipates that there will be any diminution of the quantity or quality of United Kingdom-based research into(a) food irradiation, (b) micro-wave treatments, (c) exclusion of salmonella from chickens, and (d) the growth of listeria in foods, as a result of the closure of the Bristol laboratory of the Institute of Food Research.

  Mr. Curry
  No. Research on these issues will continue to be carried out as necessary at the IFR's other sites at Norwich and Reading and at other research institutions.

  Mr. David Nicholson
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what United Kingdom resources capable of monitoring the safety of the food processes of(a) cook-chill and (b) ready meal production on a scale appropriate to industrial conditions will remain following the closure of the Bristol laboratory of the Institute of Food Research.

  Mr. Curry
  Facilities for carrying out research and monitoring current conditions on the safety of cook-chill and other ready meal products exist at Leatherhead Food Research Association, Campden Food and Drink Research Association, Huddersfield polytechnic, Sheffield polytechnic and the Dorset Institute of Higher Education. The Ministry is funding work at some of these establishments in the fields in question and recognises the existent expertise.

  Radiation Contamination
  Mr. Andrew Welsh
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (1) if he will indicate what level of radiation contamination was present in soft fruit imported to Britain in each year from 1986 onwards;

  (2) if he will make it his policy to monitor future imports of soft fruit to Britain for radiation contamination.

  Mr. Freeman
  I have been asked to reply.

  Central records on the monitoring of soft fruit food imports by port health authorities for radiation contamination following the Chernobyl nuclear accident show that since 1986 only consignments of dried prunes from Romania have exceeded maximum permitted levels.
  826
  All consignments concerned have been refused entry into the United Kingdom. United Kingdom monitoring has not picked up any excess readings over the last two years.

  Port health authorities are continuing to monitor food imports from outside the European Community in accordance with the latest European Council regulation (EEC No. 4003/89).

  Therapeutic Medicants
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what tests have been carried out to establish whether therapeutic medicants used in animal feedingstuffs show up in the flesh and offal of animals destined for human consumption; what are the results of these tests; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Maclean
  My Department carries out extensive monitoring of residues of veterinary medicines, including therapeutic substances administered in animal feed; 40,000 samples are taken annually at randomly selected slaughterhouses and farms and are subject to screening tests and confirmatory analysis where residues are suspected. In 1989, 97 per cent. of samples analysed for anti-microbial substances passed these tests. In the remaining cases follow-up action was taken with the farms of origin.

  Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (1) what research he has commissioned on the spread of bovine spongiform encephalopathy to mice; what figures are available on the incidence of bovine spongiform encephalopathy among mice; and what information he has on the possibility of communication of bovine spongiform encephalopathy from mice to humans;

  (2) what restrictions have been placed on the export of British mice as a result of the spread of bovine spongiform encephalopathy.

  Mr. Maclean
  Research has shown that bovine spongiform encephalopathy can be transmitted to mice in experimental conditions by intra-cerebral inoculation of BSE brain tissue and by feeding large quantities of infective material. Both are unnatural methods of infection which cannot be mimicked in field conditions. Questions about its incidence, risk and control do not therefore arise.

  Free Foodstuffs (EC)
  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will list in the Official Report the types of food, the quantities ordered and the locations of the distribution of all free foodstuffs received from Economic Community states for free distribution to pensioners to the United Kingdom over the past six months.

  Mr. Curry
  [pursuant to his reply, 15 January 1990, c. 134]: I have placed in the Library of the House details of distribution centres for butter and beef under the EC surplus food scheme which have been notified to us over the past six months.

Preamble
The House met at eleven of the clock: The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of Southwark.

Palace of Westminster: Lighting Costs
Lord Hatch of Lusby Lord Hatch of Lusby asked Her Majesty's Government:
What is the annual cost of lighting in the Palace of Westminster.
Lord Reay: My Lords, in the last financial year the total electricity bill for the parliamentary estate was £576,873. However, I regret to say that it is not possible to separate the cost of lighting from other electrical costs.
Lord Hatch of Lusby: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that I have been told repeatedly from his Front Bench that the reduction in the budget of the Energy Efficiency Office is a result of the success of that unit and there is thus less need for its operation? Has that unit operated in this Palace and can he say how many of the lighting bulbs in this Palace are of the energy efficient type?
Lord Reay: My Lords, I cannot say how many are of the energy efficient type. Following the energy audit of the Palace of Westminster which was carried out in 1989, various recommendations were made, including re-lamping with energy efficient lamps. To date 70 per cent. of the work to implement the recommendations has been completed and arrangements are in hand to complete the outstanding work. Perhaps I may add that the replacement of energy efficient lamps is not always practical in your Lordships' House or other parts of the parliamentary estate. For one thing, some of the fittings cannot easily or immediately be replaced.
Lord Ezra: My Lords, can the noble Lord say how much is expected to be saved as a result of the re-lamping programme once it is completed?
Lord Reay: My Lords, it will be very difficult to measure the precise savings which will be achieved. It is the case that, despite the savings that have been introduced, the electricity costs with regard to the parliamentary estate have continued to rise. For example, in 1987–88 the electrical costs were £509,000 compared with the figure for last year that I gave.
The Earl of Lauderdale: My Lords, does my noble friend agree that it is high time that the heating system in this building was overhauled? It is either too hot or too cold.
Lord Reay: My Lords, I am sure that the noble Earl makes a point with which many noble Lords
1026
find themselves in agreement. I shall pass on his remarks.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, the noble Lord described the measures that the Government are taking to introduce energy efficient lamps into the Palace. On a slightly wider scale, can he tell the House whether the Government have an electricity efficiency programme throughout all the buildings that they administer?
Lord Reay: My Lords, there is a public sector campaign run by the Energy Efficiency Office which aims to save £45 million a year in government departments.
Lord John-Mackie: My Lords, would the noble Lord care to take a walk along the corridors of this House and take a look at all the empty rooms with lights blazing?
Lord Reay: My Lords, I have often been very favourably impressed by the fact that after hours there are not very many lights burning at this end of the Palace of Westminster. Certainly much care is taken to try to ensure that electricity is not wasted in that respect.
Lord Mowbray and Stourton: My Lords, can my noble friend confirm that it is perhaps misplaced zeal for energy saving that stops us using the lights which have been installed in the past 15 to 20 years under the Gallery and which slightly lit those rather nice glass shields all round it? We are never allowed to see them now except at the State Opening of Parliament.
Lord Reay: My Lords, the noble Lord draws attention to the fact that there are other considerations which need to be borne in mind, not least aesthetic considerations. Those do not always tend in the same direction.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, does the noble Lord agree that in the public interest the more light that is cast on our affairs these days the better it will be? Is he aware that many complaints have been made to the effect that the light in your Lordships' House is much inferior to the lighting in the other place when seen on television? Can he say what steps are being taken to improve the light in this Chamber?
Lord Reay: My Lords, I entirely agree with the noble Lord's first point. I have been doing my best to comply with it. With respect to the lights required by television, that must be a matter for the Broadcasting Committee, which I am sure will consider the matter.
Lord Tordoff: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that part of the answer to the question of the noble Lord, Lord Mowbray and Stourton, is that the lighting was discontinued because of damage caused to the friezes by the replacement of lights? This matter was discussed fairly recently by one of your Lordships' committees. Further, is he aware that the

1027
lighting in this Chamber is somewhat worse today than it was yesterday? Has this anything to do with the Question on the Order Paper?
Lord Reay: My Lords, perhaps that depends on the noble Lord's point of view.
Lord Airedale: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that on 22nd January, when the House rose at 5 o'clock in the afternoon, I awoke in the television room four hours later, went to the Library to collect my briefcase and found the Library deserted but all the overhead lights were blazing in all four rooms and most of the table lamps as well?
Lord Reay: My Lords, I am sorry to hear what the noble Lord says. The PSA employs two full-time lighting attendants who, apart from their normal duties, have the obligation to switch off unnecessary lights. In addition, security staff are also asked to switch off lights in empty offices. I shall draw the complaint of the noble Lord to their attention.
Lord Swinfen: My Lords, can we also bear in mind that in this Palace lights need to be left on in certain places purely on grounds of security?
Lord Reay: My Lords, I think that the noble Lord is quite right.
Lord Hatch of Lusby: My Lords, I sincerely welcome the news that the noble Lord has given us that the Government are taking seriously the question of energy efficiency in this House. However, can he extend the matter a little further? To what extent are the Government encouraging knowledge throughout the country of the availability of energy efficient bulbs? I believe that in the United States public utilities are giving them away to poorer people in order to help to save electricity.
Lord Reay: My Lords, some years ago the Government ran a massive advertising campaign which was supported by many different events in different parts of the country. The campaign was very successful in raising consumer awareness. It has not been found necessary to repeat it.

Construction Industry Training Board
11.15 a.m.
Baroness Turner of Camden Baroness Turner of Camden asked Her Majesty's Government:
What is the present position concerning the reconstitution of the Construction Industry Training Board, and when an announcement will be made.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Employment (Lord Strathclyde): My Lords, my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Employment is firmly committed to reconstituting the Construction Industry Training Board. The main employer organisations have been
1028
consulted about the membership of the new board. He expects to be able to make an announcement shortly.
Baroness Turner of Camden: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that reply. However, will he take account of the fact that the uncertainty is creating a great deal of concern among the staff? Quite obviously morale is not improved by the uncertainties surrounding the issue. Will he bear in mind that in such circumstances very often highly skilled staff can obtain jobs elsewhere? If we wish to maintain a reasonable standard of staff at the CITB it is necessary to take account of all these factors.
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, the Government of course do not wish to see any lessening of morale within the training board. Our intention is to appoint the right people as soon as possible. Until then the existing board remains in place.
Lord Mellish: My Lords, the Minister will be aware that the CITB is one of the finest in the country. That is accepted by all parties. I am making a non-party political point. In heaven's name, why do the Government have to muck about with what is already running very well and doing fine? Why cause concern and unhappiness among people who are doing a first-class job? Is such concern not the fault of the Government? The Government do not know when to stop.
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Mellish, is not quite right on that. We spent a great deal of time in the Committee stage of the Employment Bill last year discussing this precise point. The Committee came to the conclusion that the new proposals were the correct way to go forward. The CITB has been kept on as a training board precisely because it was seen to be doing a good job.
Baroness Turner of Camden: My Lords, perhaps I may come back to the Minister on his first reply. He stated that there would be consultation and that such consultations were proceeding. He referred to consultation with employers. Can he tell the House what consultations are taking place with organisations which represent employees within the industry?
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, the General Secretary of the TUC has suggested names to the Secretary of State and these will be considered.
Lord Auckland: My Lords, in declaring my interest as a non-executive director of a small construction and civil engineering company, may I urge my noble friend to make representations that the announcement is made soon? Is he aware that the industry needs many young people to keep our very fine construction industry going? When the reconstitution takes place, will the youth training scheme play an important part?
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, with regard to the timescale, we shall be making an announcement as soon as possible.
Lord Mellish: My Lords, what does that mean?
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, as soon as possible means very shortly indeed.
Many commercial YT managing agents already exist and supply high quality training. I understand that others within the departing sectors are developing further proposals.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, can the Minister be a little more specific? A remarkable situation is developing. Can the Minister enlarge on what part of the statement of the noble Lord, Lord Mellish, he finds inaccurate?
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, it was not the statement of the noble Lord, Lord Mellish, that was inaccurate. My point was that it was policy decision that we took in this House last October. I am simply making the point that we had discussed it at some considerable length some months ago.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, will the Minister answer the first part of the question? Instead of saying "in the near future", or "in a few weeks' time" —he has not even said that —can we assume that within one month from today the matter will be completed to everyone's satisfaction?
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, I am not sure that I could ever do anything to the satisfaction of the noble Lord, Lord Molloy. We are looking for the right people to sit on the board. That is what is important. We are trying to do it as quickly as possible but I cannot give a firm date.

Statutory Undertakers: Powers
11.20 a.m.
Lord St. John of Fawsley Lord St. John of Fawsley asked Her Majesty's Government:
What is their policy on statutory undertakers who dig up the highways.
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, the powers of statutory undertakers to break open the highway are governed by the street works code in the Public Utilities Street Works Act 1950. The Government accept that the arrangements for utility street works are in need of reform and have said that they intend to bring forward new legislation to implement the main recommendations of the Horne Report, Roads and the Utilities. A Bill based on proposals contained in a consultation paper issued last May will be introduced as soon as a suitable opportunity can be found.
Lord St. John of Fawsley: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that helpful Answer. Is he aware that the streets of many of our great cities, especially London, now resemble battlefields and that the residents are continually tormented by the chatter and vibration of electric drills? Should not companies such as Westminster Cable Television, which are profiting from the use of the public
1030
highway, make a contribution towards the costs incurred? Further, should there not be a duty on them to restore the highway to its former condition?
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, times have changed since 1950 and the law is in need of reform. Cable television companies require a licence under the Telecommunications Act which makes them subject to the same street works code in the 1950 Act. Thus cable television companies are required to meet the same conditions as any statutory undertaker when excavating in the streets. For example, before digging up a street they must serve notice on the highway authority and the utilities which may be affected, and for major works agree arrangements with the highway authority. As regards charging, the department is now considering responses to a consultation paper which was sent out for consultation in September, 1989. There would be time to implement its details in any proposed legislation.
Lord Rea: My Lords, as a cyclist, who this morning was practically thrown off his bicycle three times on the way to the House because of inadequately filled holes in the road, can the Minister tell me whether he has any powers —even of persuasion —to insist that the undertakers who make holes in the road fill them up adequately and level with the rest of the road?
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, under the existing provisions in the code which I mentioned in my Answer, utilities and others licensed to excavate the streets are required to restore the surface of the road or footpath only to its original surface level. That is often a temporary restoration. The highway authority has the right to carry out the permanent restoration at a later stage or it may allow the utility to do so. Most authorities elect to do so themselves. The difficulty arises in the time between the temporary and permanent restoration of the road, but the code of practice in the new law will over-come that.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, can my noble friend say whether the proposed legislation will deal with a trouble which arises today? I am referring to the fact that just when the highway has been restored another worthy organisation comes along and digs it up again. In view of the fact that my noble friend says that the matter is being considered, does he agree that it was being considered in Government to my personal knowledge in 1955? Is it not now time that something was actually done about it?
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, I have a great deal of sympathy for what my noble friend says but the 1950 Act is now in force. However, I understand that the Department of Transport has made proposals to local authority associations and utilities for joint development of a computerised street works register. I am sure that once that task has been undertaken the concerns held by many noble Lords about roads being dug up once and then dug up again will be overcome. However, that does not mean to say that we do not need the law to back it up.
Lord Underhill: My Lords, is the Minister aware that I and other noble Lords have been pressing the matter for at least the past two years? As long ago as 1986 the Government stated that they accept the 1973 recommendations in the Home Report and that legislation will be introduced as and when the opportunity arises. We have been given that answer time and time again. As the subject is to be debated next Wednesday on an Unstarred Question, will the Minister consult his right honourable friend the Secretary of State in order to obtain a better Answer outlining definite action?
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, I shall consider most carefully the noble Lord's comments. I appreciate that he has an abiding interest in matters of transport and has raised the subject on many occasions. However, many factors must be taken into account when determining the legislative programme. Some measures are essential in order to conform to international law and others are a political priority. Street works reform would have required a lengthy, technically complex Bill and there would not have been sufficient parliamentary time this Session.
Lord Tordoff: My Lords, is the Minister saying that the Government give the subject low parliamentary priority?
Viscount Ullswater: No, my Lords, I am saying that there may be other subjects which have a higher parliamentary priority.

Ministry of Defence Police
11.26 a.m.
Lord Graham of Edmonton Lord Graham of Edmonton asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether the replacement of Ministry of Defence police by private security firms at defence establishments has caused a decline in standards of security.
Lord Reay: My Lords, the standard of security at any establishment depends on the perceived threat to, and nature and purpose of, the establishment. In all cases where the Ministry of Defence police have been replaced, the department is generally satisfied that the security arrangements are adequate in relation to the current state of these factors. But the position is being kept under constant review.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for that Answer. However, does he not share the concern of Mr. Michael Mates, chairman of the Commons' Select Committee on Defence, that servicemen's lives could be put at risk because of a fall in security standards where the job of guarding military installations has been contracted out to private firms? Those are the views of the chairman of the defence Select Committee. Will the Minister look at the observations of a
1032
member of the same committee, Mr. Winston Churchill, who said that the action was sheer irresponsibility? Can we be told how many establishments are now guarded by private security firms and whether the change has been made on grounds of cost and not security?
Lord Reay: My Lords, Ministry of Defence police have been withdrawn where the Ministry's security staff are satisfied that the security requirements of the site in question have been adequately met by other means, including the employment of contract guards. The Ministry of Defence reviews and monitors the performance of all contract security guards extremely carefully. Where requirements are not met action will be taken, including the termination of the contract where necessary. Such action has recently been taken.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: My Lords, in how many cases has there been a termination of contract? Secondly, how can he possibly say that there has been no deterioration in the quality of security, given the fact that the Association of Chief Police Officers has made it clear that a substantial number of people employed by private security firms have formidable criminal records?
Lord Reay: My Lords, I cannot give the details for which the noble Lord asked. However, as regards his second question, it is Ministry of Defence policy as far as possible to employ Ministry of Defence police officers only where there is a need for their constabulary powers, specialised training and/or a requirement to be armed. They are a skilled and specialised force and we cannot afford to employ such scarce resources on tasks for which their expertise is not required.
Baroness Phillips: My Lords, is the Minister aware that many noble Lords would like to see the private security companies submitted to a licensing board under government control so that there would be adequate inspection of the employees and the type of work provided? Will the Government agree to support such a Private Member's Bill if brought before this House?
Lord Reay: No, my Lords, I can give no such assurance. I repeat that contract guards will be used only under tight control and the arrangements will be subject to regular review.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, is it not further the case that one of the witnesses from the Ministry of Defence giving evidence to the Select Committee in another place referred to by my noble friend said plainly that the hiring of private firms for those purposes had not been satisfactory? Is not that a grave indictment calling for a most careful inquiry into that whole area?
Is the noble Lord further satisfied that the vetting procedures in those establishments are adequate? Does he not agree that there is a great deal of work necessary at present if the lives and careers of servicemen are to be properly protected?
Lord Reay: My Lords, on the noble Lord's last point I completely agree that it is necessary to devote additional resources to protect the lives of our servicemen and their dependants from the terrorist threat. An additional £126 million has been allocated over the next three years to improve security at defence establishments in this country and overseas.
An increase of 300 in the strength of the Ministry of Defence police is also expected over the next year to meet the terrorist threat. That simply underlines the need for us to use that skilled manpower sensibly and properly to carry out the tasks for which they are trained.
Lord Grimond: My Lords, is it a policy of the Government that the security at the barracks of fighting units should be carried out in certain cases by private security firms?
Lord Reay: My Lords, as I think I made plain in the previous answer, it is the practice to use Ministry of Defence police where the requirements of their specialised training and constabulary powers are required. If there is a requirement to be armed, only those police are employed.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, is not part of the problem, as my noble friend has just said, that whereas Ministry of Defence police can be and often are armed, in general private employees are not permitted to be armed?
Lord Reay: My Lords, it is certainly the case that contract guards may not be armed.
Lord Bottomley: My Lords, is the Minister aware that the Ministry of Defence police was looked upon as one of the most efficient authorities in the country? Can we be sure that the private security firms will keep up that standard? Will the Ministry of Defence take special care to see that they do?
Lord Reay: My Lords, as I said, the Ministry of Defence reviews and monitors carefully the performance of all contract security guards and will only employ them where it is satisfied that it is proper to do so.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: My Lords, if the first priority is to protect our soldiers in this country, how can it be right to withdraw Ministry of Defence police who can be armed and replace them by unarmed representatives of private security firms, some of whom have significant criminal records?
Lord Reay: My Lords, I can only repeat that the decision to do that is taken by the Ministry of Defence security staffs only when they are satisfied that thereby security requirements can be properly met.
Lord Blyth: My Lords, it seems to my simple mind that it would be cheaper to use your own employees rather than somebody else's. Why is that not so?
Lord Reay: My Lords, I do not believe that that is so.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: My Lords, does the Minister not accept that the tone and tenor of his replies smack of complacency? What has been demonstrated is that Members from all sides of the House are saying that on a question of cutting costs the House would prefer —and I believe that the country would prefer —to feel that all our servicemen are adequately protected. Will the Minister answer a direct question? Given all that he has said as to the safeguards for the employment of private firms, why is it possible that at the Royal Marines' barracks at Deal and at other places there have been instances whereby private firms have employed people with criminal records? That does not make sense and does not line up with what the Minister said.
Lord Reay: My Lords, it is not correct to imply that the Government are cutting costs on this matter. As I said, we are devoting an additional £88 million over the next three years to improving security at defence establishments in this country.

Coal Industry Bill
11.35 a.m.
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, I beg to move that the Coal Industry Bill be now read a second time.
The heart of this Bill involves the capital reconstruction of British Coal and it may be helpful if I set out the background before describing in more detail how the reconstruction will be achieved. Much of British Coal's present financial problems originate in the Plan for Coal agreed in the mid-1970s. This envisaged a massive investment programme estimated in 1976 at over £3 billion to build up output to 135 million tonnes by 1985, with productivity growth of 4 per cent. a year. The borrowings to finance this investment raised British Coal's debt from around £1 billion in 1978 to over £4 billion by 1984. However, the promised productivity growth failed to come through and increasing losses were incurred from 1979 onwards. From 1980 up until 1987, this Government extinguished the losses year by year by means of deficit grant, and this kept the debt at broadly the £4 billion level throughout the period. Altogether, taking into account restructuring and other social grants, this Government have provided £10 billion grant for the coal industry since 1979.
Your Lordships will be well aware of the tremendous productivity surge of over 75 per cent. since the 1985 strike. This has reduced costs by nearly 30 per cent. in real terms, and I pay tribute to what the corporation's management has achieved. But the financial benefit of this has been more than offset by the collapse in energy prices in 1986. Oil prices halved and international coal prices followed suit. This has led to a steady decline in British Coal's prices, which are now 25 per cent. lower in real terms than five years ago.
It was hoped that British Coal would break even in the second half of 1987–88 and for the full year 1988–89. In fact, because of the squeeze on margins and the accelerated restructuring programme that

1035
resulted, the losses for this period were around £500 million, and a further loss of the same magnitude is expected for the current year. To finance this British Coal has had to increase its borrowings to over £5 billion.
In addition, under SSAP 24 —a new accounting standard dealing with pensions and similar entitlements—British Coal is expected this year for the first time to provide in its accounts for its concessionary coal liabilities, primarily to ex-employees, instead of charging them on a pay-as-you-go basis. These will amount to between £1·5 and £2 billion. The corporation has also made provisions of around £0·5 billion in respect of ex-employees' industrial deafness claims.
Finally, falling energy prices since 1986 have shortened the economic life of many collieries and severely depressed the cash flow of others. It has been increasingly clear for some time that the book value of the corporation's collieries has been well in excess of their true earnings potential, and indeed the auditors have qualified British Coal's accounts on this point since 1984. And in the highly-capitalised Selby coalfield prospects have been seriously diminished by persistently adverse geology.
A majority of collieries are now likely to show a negative cash flow over their remaining lives, and others will show projected earnings well below their current book value. Much more work remains to be done in this area, but it seems likely that this will lead to the write-off of at least half the industry's £4 billion fixed assets and perhaps a good deal more. However this write-down, which is in line with standard accounting practice (SSAP 12), is essential if the auditors' qualification of British Coal's accounts is to be lifted.
The Government welcome the improved transparency that these changes will bring. For the same reason the Government also welcome the corporation's recent agreement to end the arrangement whereby each colliery is attributed with a share of the average proceeds nationally. From the beginning of next year each coalfield will be credited with the actual proceeds from its own disposals. These two steps will allow a much truer and fairer value to be established for each colliery and for the corporation as a whole.
However, the financial effect is large. The unrelieved losses of the last two years, the provisions for concessionary coal and deafness claims, and the asset write-down, will result in a deficiency of over £5 billion and possibly up to £7 billion in the corporation's March 1990 balance sheet. This puts the Government, as the industry's banker, in a quandary. With such a growing deficiency in the balance sheet there would be no way that the corporation could be expected to service and repay its borrowings, and thus no way in which the Government could legitimately continue to lend the day-to-day funds which the corporation will continue to require.
Clause 1 addresses the problem by giving the Government power to deal with the accumulated losses by means of a deficiency grant; but it also
1036
achieves two other objectives. The first is that the injection of grant will enable the corporation to repay an equivalent amount of its existing borrowings, which will bring its debt into closer alignment with the true value of the fixed assets to which they relate and will of course substantially reduce the corporation's interest burden. The second is that the grant, which is expected to be taxable on receipt, will greatly reduce the enormous tax losses and allowances of over £3 billion which the corporation has accumulated.
The Government's intention is to pay a substantial sum in deficiency grant immediately upon Royal Assent to this Bill, but the grant does of course constitute a state aid and payment is therefore subject to the prior approval of the European Coal and Steel Community, which we are urgently seeking. Further sums will be paid once British Coal's 1989–90 accounts have been finalised, while grant in respect of concessionary coal and industrial deafness claims will be phased over several years to match British Coal's own settlement of these claims.
The capital reconstruction is very good news for the coal industry because it very largely removes from the corporation the losses and liabilities of the past. The outline contract with the generators announced in December is also excellent news. It gives them a period of three years in which to adjust their costs and restructure the industry into a strong competitive position for the longer term.
Clause 2 provides for a continuing government contribution towards the cost of this restructuring. It increases the limit on restructuring grant from £750 million to £1,500 million and extends its availability by one year to March 1993. This is a broad-brush figure. Obviously, as in any business, the corporation will wish to look closely at those operations and segments of business which are not expected to generate a positive cash flow; but the extent and timing of the restructuring are matters for British Coal to assess.
Following the capital reconstruction we expect the corporation to achieve growing profitability. There will therefore be no requirement for any further government financial support to the corporation other than the restructuring grant that I have mentioned. We also expect the corporation within a year or two to have made sufficient progress towards its self-financing that it can start to reduce the outstanding borrowings which will remain after the capital reconstruction.
There will, however, be a need for continuing day-to-day borrowings. Clause 3 of the Bill is designed to facilitate that. It is a technical provision which ensures that temporary deposits from British Coal will not have to be paid into the Consolidated Fund but can instead be withdrawn when required. In other words, it will allow the Secretary of State to offer revolving credit facilities as well as term loans.
Clause 4 of the Bill provides for an increase in the limits on licensed mining and other consequential changes. The present limits —30 men underground in the case of deep mines and 25,000 tonnes in the case of opencast mines —have not changed since

1037
they were set in the 1940s and 1950s, in spite of the enormous changes in mining technology over the past 50 years. The smaller British Coal mine today employs between 200 and 250 men underground, and only a small number of the corporation's opencast sites are below 250,000 tonnes.
This Bill proposes an increase in the underground limit to 150 men —and I should like to confirm that this means 150 underground men on books rather than 150 men underground on any one shift —and an increase in the opencast limit of 250,000 tonnes. In other words, the largest licensed deep mine will still be smaller than virtually all British Coal mines.
Some have suggested that British Coal's operations should be hived off from its licensing role. The Government strongly agree with this in principle. This will be the essence of a coal privatisation Bill in the next Parliament. But it is technically complex legislation and would require wide consultation beforehand. It could not realistically be brought forward in the current Parliament.
Our modest purpose in this Bill is to open up economic reserves, particularly of special quality coals, such as anthracite, which are too extensive or deep to be worked under the existing limits but too small to be considered by British Coal. Much of the extra tonnage will directly displace imports. It will also create more mining jobs in depressed communities. Larger-scale operations will encourage investment in more efficient machines and working practices, which will not only cut costs but also greatly improve the safety of licensed deep mines and the environmental impact of opencast mines.
Your Lordships' House is agreed, I am sure, that safety must be the paramount concern in mining operations. There is no dispute that the recent safety record of licensed mines has been worse than that of British Coal's mines. But there is a difference of view about the safety implications of raising the 30-man limit. Some argue that this will simply expose more men to the dangers of old-fashioned mining. Our view is that potential licensees will look hard at the possibilities of investing in mechanisation to take advantage of the multi-shifting and larger throughput that the higher limit will allow; and that mechanisation will lead to the same reduction in accident rates as British Coal saw when it mechanised 30 or 40 years ago. The Government's firm view is that there can be no justification for condemning licensees to use older and inherently riskier mining techniques where, but for the manpower restriction, they would have been able and willing to mechanise and automate.
The key responsibility for enforcing mining regulations of course falls to the Mines Inspectorate which is able to, and actually does, close down mines which fall seriously short of acceptable safety standards. In addition, British Coal requires to be satisfied as to the technical capability of the applicant to carry out the operations safely; and it also requires to know the name of the manager and that he is suitably qualified. Finally, the insurance companies which insure licensed mines have taken a more proactive role over the past year in sending
1038
their own mining inspectors to all mines to identify safety risks and in advising on mine planning.
The environmental aspects of opencasting are just as emotive as the safety issue is for deep mines. But here too the Government believe the proposal to raise the licence limit will bring benefits. At present where there is a deposit of, say, 100,000 tonnes being worked by a licensee the 25,000-tonne limit means that the site tends to get worked in a piecemeal fashion. Moreover, there is simply not room to deploy modern efficient machines, so the extraction of each licensed area takes longer than it needs to.
Thirdly, the economics and the confined layout of a small 25,000-tonne site may prevent the extraction of the deeper seams. This is a waste of a national resource and it can leave the nagging worry for the local community that the site may be reworked at a later date. And finally, the lack of space to store excavated spoil can limit the scope for imaginative landscaping when the site is restored. We believe that raising the limit to 250,000 tonnes will go some way to overcoming these concerns about piecemealing, and this is a view which is shared by the local authorities. Raising the limits should lead to fewer but larger licensed sites, more quickly worked out and more sensitively restored.
Opencast coal is an immensely valuable national energy resource. Its costs are low —on average 30 per cent. less than deep-mined coal —and its quality, in terms of low ash content and low chlorine, is in high and growing demand. There are very large national benefits from more opencastirig. But against these national benefits there has to be set the disbenefits to the local environment.
A balance has to be drawn, and the Government believe it has to be drawn on a site-by-site basis through the planning system. In 1988, in response to rising environmental expectations, the Secretary of State for the Environment issued new mineral planning guidelines which set out much more fully and tightly than before the environmental considerations that have to be taken into account in striking this balance, including the arrangements for restoration. These guidelines apply to all opencast coal applications, and nothing in this present Bill detracts in any way from the planning regime as it applies to licensed mines.
The Secretary of State has also since 1988 required applicants for planning permission for opencast sites above 50 hectares —that is, about 120 acres —to prepare a full environmental impact assessment which examines all aspects of how the proposed workings will affect the environment. Assessments will be required for virtually all the larger licensed sites allowed by this Bill.
I want finally to refer to subsidence. The Government recognise that the present statutory arrangements governing subsidence are not fully satisfactory and they are committed to bring forward early legislation to put improvements in place. But the legislation is not straightforward because it needs to consolidate the two existing Acts that bear on subsidence as well as introducing new features. It would not be practical to tack subsidence provisions on to the present Bill, which has financial provisions

1039
that urgently need to be in place by the end of this financial year. I shall of course take careful note of the points made about this today.
The capital reconstruction of British Coal that this Bill proposes reflects two things: this Government's willingness to face up squarely to the hard financial realities and their unwavering support for British Coal's own efforts to become a viable and competitive business. This Bill recognises that further reconstruction will be required before this goal is achieved, but it offers a real basis for confidence in the industry's long-term future. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a second time. —(Viscount Ullswater.)
11.54 a.m.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: My Lords, on behalf of the whole House I begin by thanking the Minister for what quite clearly is the great deal of preparation that he has undertaken in order to give the House a full and lucid explanation of what the Bill is about. I say to him and the House that for many of us, especially those behind me on these Benches, the coal industry is more than just a subject for a piece of legislation.
When we look at the coal industry we do not see just columns of figures, balance sheets, profit and loss accounts, subsidies or prices; we do not just see preambles, clauses or schedules, but flesh and blood. I see sitting behind me my noble friend Lord Mason of Barnsley. I can recall, more than 20 years ago, the noble Lord, Lord Mason, going to see a play in London. I saw the same play in Newcastle-upon-Tyne at the Playhouse. That play was about the Northumberland and Durham coalfield. It was put together by three remarkable people. One was named Syd Chaplin, who produced the stories; another was Alan Plater, who produced the stage play, and the third was Alec Glasgow.
Together they produced a gripping story about the life and times of the mining communities of the North-East. The play told about the injustice and struggle and the fact that they were still continuing. It was called "Close the Coalhouse Door". I wonder whether my noble friend Lord Mason remembers the first line of each of the first three verses. They are:
"Close the coalhouse door, boys, there's blood inside. Close the coalhouse door, boys, there're bones inside. Close the coalhouse door, boys, there's skin inside".
When we speak of the coal industry we are talking about men as well as money. The raison d'etre for this Bill, as the Minister has said, is to see it as a restructuring of the finances of British Coal. The Minister does not need to spend much time on convincing the House that the accounts need restructuring. No other company in the world shares British Coal's accounting structure, which imposes unnecessary and unfair historical costs on current performance.
It would have been far better to take the advice and the plan of the TUC, especially when one sees that last year's operating profit rose to a 20-year high
1040
of £498 million, making British Coal one of the most profitable coal companies in the world. Yet, despite a 90 per cent. growth in productivity since 1985 and a real operating profit of £1·4 million, it was not allowed to raise coal prices in line with inflation as most other UK companies have done, and that real profit of £ 1·4 million was transformed into a bottom line loss of £203 million.
The Minister knows that the principal reasons for that were the obligatory cost of servicing the corporation's debt to government, terminal depreciation costs, net restructuring costs and the ludicrously high cost of loans. That means that for every £1 million invested by British Coal it will pay out £1 million in interest charges. I support restructuring which has the following aims: steps to be taken so that the British electricity supply industry sustains a sufficiently high and predictable demand for British coal to provide the basis for the long-term development of Britain's coal industry; investment in the coal industry sufficient to ensure that British coal supplies are available at an economically competitive price; more resources to be provided for the development of new, clean coal technologies; and imports of coal, especially dumped coal, not to be increased to the detriment of British coal.
These proposals form a financial restructuring and are designed to secure the future of a publicly-owned coal industry which I believe is fundamental to energy policy as a whole. It is a far better recipe for the industry than the slim-it-down, fatten-it-up and flog-it-off policy which is contained in this mercenary Bill. Whatever the case put forward in Committee to expand opencast coal mining, the Minister knows that it will be against the views of the Energy Committee report of another place made in 1987 concerning the coal industry. The report states:
"Opencast mining is one of the most environmentally destructive processes being carried out in the UK".
I invite the Minister to cut out all the rhetoric about the Government being the Green Party in drag, being environmentally pure and being prepared to make the polluter pay. What is the Government's record on overseeing environmental obligations on opencast operators? I suggest that at the moment it is abysmal. The Council for the Protection of Rural England is in no doubt that the Bill requires safeguards for protecting our countryside, our habitat and our heritage. There should be an environmental duty attached to the award of all licences for working coal in both the deep-mine and opencast sectors. Where is the framework within which licences for coal working, searching and boring can be granted? Where is the care, the concern and the responsible attitude?
There are many reasons why opencast mining is to be avoided if at all possible. Yet, when the Secretary of State spoke on the Bill at Second Reading in another place, the only case that he made out was on technical grounds as a result of which more coal could be mined than hitherto. What about the visual impact? There was not a word. What about noise? There was not a word. What about blasting, ground vibration and air blast waves? There was not

1041
a word. What about dust, overburden and transporting the coal? There was not a word. What about the effect on watercourses, leaching and pollution? There was not a word. What about agricultural use, nature conservation and forestry'? There was not a word. What about our natural heritage and extraction impact on listed buildings? There was not a word.
The Government's attitude in that respect is scandalous, cynical and mercenary. It has nothing to do with the national interest; it has everything to do with money and greed. To extend open-cast mining flies in the face of the Flowers Committee, which said:
"We strongly recommend that as older, more unprofitable and less environmentally acceptable deep mines are closed and more efficient and profitable operations take place, the volume of opencast mining should be allowed to decline. In the meantime there should be no increase in the present target of 15 million tonnes per year. The unique sensitive character of the British countryside and the high population density in much of the country would not be able to accommodate, without unwarrantable damage, a target in excess of that level".
Perhaps I may introduce what I hope the Minister will accept is a constructive note; it is certainly intended to be so. I have been involved over many years in encouraging the utilisation of minestone in a range of civil engineering outlets. That sector can utilise many millions of tonnes per year. I followed the debate on coal and the environment under the chairmanship of the noble Lord, Lord Flowers, in which evidence was given by the then National Coal Board's Minestone Executive. I am pleased to see that the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, is here as he played a major part in creating the Minestone Executive with a view to doing what it could to treat chemically and make environmentally useful what one would call the waste or slag from mines. Evidence was given by the executive in the report of the noble Lord, Lord Flowers and it was commended on its efforts to encourage the commercial use of minestone.
I also followed with great interest the evidence given to Sir Ralph Verney's committee, which ultimately produced the report, Aggregates: The Way Ahead. It recommended, first, that the Government, in conjunction with the construction industry, should study the implications of requiring tenderers for highway works to reveal the general source of material that they use with a view to permitting a full assessment of the costs and benefits of using different sources of imported fill. It recommended, secondly, that the Government should lay major and urgent emphasis on the studies already in hand and those that it had recommended with a view to maximising the contribution of waste materials to the supply of aggregates.
Those recommendations clearly show the enthusiastic support for the use of minestone in civil engineering and related projects. It has been clearly illustrated that the disposal of minestone is in the interests of the corporation itself; of the community generally from the point of view of conservation of scarcer, more costly alternative aggregates; and of the enhancement of the environment, by reducing the number of colliery spoil tips and reducing other quarrying activities.
1042
I met the then Transport Minister, Mr. Peter Bottomley, in 1987, when he agreed to nominate an official contact for the Minestone Executive for major road schemes with potential for use of minestone. I am now advised that no official has been nominated to encourage the use of minestone in major road schemes. Will the Minister tell the House why that has not come about?
As noble Lords are aware, in addition to highway schemes, there are some large land reclamation and development schemes under the jurisdiction of government departments which could utilise massive amounts of minestone. For instance, the Committee stage of the Cardiff Bay Barrage Bill has taken place in the House this very week. I am sure that there is a possibility there for the use of minestone.
It is sometimes argued that it is difficult to transport minestone over long distances, but that argument cannot apply in Cardiff because Wales must have millions, if not billions, of tonnes of minestone lying around. Minestone is a wasting asset which should be tackled because the arguments in favour of its use are very strong. The cost of disposal of colliery waste is high and puts an additional burden on the profitability and competitiveness of coal production. Therefore, any means of reducing that cost must be seriously considered. The use of minestone conserves the supply of quality aggregate for more appropriate uses. If more minestone was used, there would be a reduction in the number of new applications to quarry and the number of borrow pits along the route of a new road would be reduced. The utilisation of minestone would reduce the cost of a major civil engineering project. Is the Minister able to reply helpfully, and, I hope, encouragingly to those points?
In his final words, the Minister touched on a matter which affects many thousands of people. Subsidence is a major issue in relation to the coal industry at this time, yet the Bill fails to deal with it. I acknowledge what the Minister said. Although there had earlier been an intention to include it in the Bill, it has now been found best not to do so. However, the Minister has a major responsibility to use the opportunity today to tell people outside the House when legislation is likely to come forward. I have received representations from mining and environmental interests. I never thought that I would stand up to speak on behalf of the Country Landowners Association, but I speak on its behalf today. It tells me that hundreds of its members have been waiting a long time to have their claims settled. Will the Minister tell the House why, in 1989, the number of claims that were rejected increased from 39 per cent. to 46 per cent? What is the major reason for the rejection of those claims?
The Minister knows that the Government created the Waddilove Committee, which laid down fairly easy, straightforward, acceptable demands, first, for British Coal to reinstate and compensate for loss of market value; secondly, for claimants to appoint contractors of their choice; thirdly, for British Coal to accept the onus of proof that damage does not result from mining subsidence; and fourthly, to

1043
establish local arbitration panels to handle small claims. I hope that the Minister will help us on those points. We certainly intend to table amendments at Committee stage to give him the opportunity to do so.
Over the past 10 years we have had short-term solutions to problems which cried out for long-term answers. Never before has Britain been able to tease out those answers against the stupendous benefits of billions of pounds brought to us by the bonanza of North Sea oil. When the history of the last decade is examined, it will be found that, instead of carefully ensuring that we did not waste a drop, we have witnessed a criminal lack of investment in research to find more and better techniques to burn our coal resources more efficiently, that our environment has paid and that we shall continue to pay for that.
A report produced for Durham council by the County Planning Officers' Society drew attention to a number of privately operated sites where planning conditions have been breached and restoration commitments not fulfilled. How can the Minister tell us that, if the present limit of 25,000 tonnes is multiplied 10 times, the breaches which have existed for the past few years will not continue in the future? The Minister must attach to those licences meaningful conditions for reinstatement and observation.
What are we to make of the proposal to increase from 30 to 150 the numbers who can work in a private mine? That simply puts five times the number of miners at graver risk in private mines than is the position at present. How can we approve an extension of private mines if we are putting miners at greater risk than we need to? The Minister knows, as does the House —and, indeed, the nation should be grateful for this —that British Coal has the best safety record in the world. In fact it is better than in Germany, it is better than in America and it is 10 times better than in South Africa and Russia.
Why then are the Government slicing away at the present high standard of safety procedures? Surely we should be pressing for higher and not lower safety standards. Colliery deputies will no longer be required to hold a first-aid certificate. There is a reduction in safety training centres of on/off the job training. Moreover, underground supervisors will in future supervise all elements in pits with fewer than 15 workers. We intend to put down amendments to bring that safety aspect before the House.
In conclusion, we on these Benches will seek to improve the Bill so that it leaves this Chamber in a more acceptable form than when we received it. That should not prove to be too difficult a task. The improvements are modest and justified: first, to bring financial sense into the energy policy of the Government; secondly, to limit an expansion of private mining which brings with it danger for an increasing number of miners; thirdly, to arrest severely the spread of opencast mining with its damage to the environment; and, fourthly, to speed the process of compensation for those who suffer loss as a result of subsidence due to coal working.
1044
We shall not oppose the Bill because it brings many benefits to miners and mining communities; but we shall articulate on behalf of many who will suffer hurt in one way or another unless the Bill is improved.
12.11 p.m.
Lord Ezra: My Lords, I should first like to associate myself with the opening remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Graham of Edmonton, by expressing appreciation of the very clear way in which the noble Viscount introduced the Second Reading of this Bill. It is a most important Bill and for anyone connected with the coal industry it ranks among some of the most important developments in the industry's history since the last war. The noble Lord, Lord Graham, also made some moving comments about the human aspects of mining. I hope that I shall be forgiven due to my long past association with the industry if I also talk a little about the past before talking about the present and the future.
The sums involved in this capital reconstruction are very considerable. I should like to suggest that the sums which the coal industry in its post-war period contributed to the benefit of the country were even more considerable. I happened to join the coal industry in 1947. At that time there was what was known as a gentlemen's agreement between the Government and the coal owners which had held the price of coal during the war-time period. That agreement was continued by the new coal board under Lord Hyndley. For approximately 10 years coal was sold on the home market at something like £2 a tonne less than the world price. I know that for a fact because I was concerned in its export.
We were being attacked by the United Nations for practising what was known as dual pricing. That process consisted of selling coal cheaper at home and exporting it abroad at a dearer price. During that period some 2 billion tonnes of coal were produced —that is, 200 million tonnes a year, which represents roughly £4 billion. That was willingly contributed by the coal industry to the consumer and the taxpayer. I should remind your Lordships that £4 billion in 1950 prices would in today's values be about 15 times that amount. I merely mention that fact because, although these are large sums, I think that historically one needs to put them into context. Even in financial terms, let alone in social and human terms, the coal industry has made very big contributions to this country.
I believe that this capital reconstruction is necessary and very important. I was going to add that it was also timely, but it is a fact that during my time in the coal industry I tried very hard to get a similar capital reconstruction brought in. However, I am delighted that this one is now being brought into being. As the noble Viscount and the noble Lord, Lord Graham, pointed out, the coal industry has performed remarkably over the past few years as shown by the massive increase in productivity which it has achieved. It is right that that should be recognised by removing from the shoulders of the industry this great burden of debt which is largely inherited from the past. Therefore, I welcome the

1045
concept of reconstruction. I think that it will give the industry a great opportunity to move forward.
Of course this is to be a once and for all settlement of the problem so far as concerns the Government. We cannot argue about that fact. It is a sound way to set about the matter. But in regard to the question of the revaluation of assets, the noble Viscount said that this was being carefully looked into. I should like to ask him what progress has been made in this respect in the discussions which are taking place among the Government, the coal industry and the auditors. It is extremely important that that revaluation should be effectively and speedily carried out so that everything will start on a proper basis.
The other aspect of the capital reconstruction of the mining industry is its ability to sell the product. As the noble Lord, Lord Graham, properly mentioned, the electricity market is the overwhelmingly largest market for coal. There have been reports of contracts being made with the new electricity generating companies which will give some degree of security to coal over the next three years. Perhaps the noble Viscount would like to tell us a little more about that aspect. Quite clearly, as important as capital reconstruction is, if because of the way in which market developments are likely to take place due to changes in other industries, such as that in the electricity industry which is now being privatised, the coal industry is impeded in its efforts to sell coal, many of the benefits from the capital reconstruction could be lost. Therefore, some degree of security in that major market is clearly required. However, has that been achieved?
The question of the licensed mines and the opencast mines and the increased levels at which both can be developed raise major issues which have been mentioned by the noble Viscount and the noble Lord, Lord Graham. I am much concerned about safety. When I was at the Coal Board carrying on the tradition set by my predecessor, Lord Robens, and other previous chairmen, safety in the mines was given the highest priority. Every time there was a fatal accident in the industry —and I am glad to say they diminished in number —it was immediately reported to the full board and all details were studied in order to make absolutely sure that an eventuality that had occurred in a particular case could not conceivably happen again if human intervention could possibly avoid it.
We knew all along that the safety standards of the licensed mines were much lower than ours. But of course we had no influence over them. The noble Viscount has told us that his impression is that if the size of licensed mines is increased, then there would be more possibility of introducing mechanised systems of mining and that that should automatically reduce the incidence of accidents. I am not sure that that follows.
We found that mechanisation itself brought new risks and they had to be dealt with. We had to devote a very great deal of effort to solving the problem. I am glad to say that there was total agreement within the industry as regards the mining unions, the men, the managers and everyone else involved, including
1046
the mining machinery manufacturers. Indeed, there was total consensus on the need to keep our mining industry as safe as possible. Moreover, we achieved the record to which the noble Lord, Lord Graham, referred. Therefore I wish to ask the noble Viscount, first, whether he has in mind any ways in which the Bill could be strengthened in this respect so that we can be assured that, if the provision for increasing the size of licensed mines goes ahead, as firm an obligation as that which rests on the main mining industry —at present publicly owned —should rest on the private licensed mine owners.
Secondly, in the case of open cast mines, one of our major priorities was to ensure the best ways of open-casting the sites and of restoring them afterwards, in conformity with the best environmental standards. Here, too, the coal industry achieved an enviable record which was referred to in many parts of the world. I remember that we were asked to send a delegation to the United States to indicate to them how we handle the matter. It was equally well known in this case that the private open cast operators failed to achieve the standards which were set and achieved by the coal board in those days. I am sure that has continued to be the case.
The private operators had no doubt fewer resources to call on, but often they left sites not in the condition in which they were committed to leave them; they just walked away. Perhaps the companies were not of such a size that anything could be done about it.
Two standards developed as in the case of safety in licensed mines: the standard applied by the coal board and that applied by the licensed operators. Again I wish to see some strengthening of the Bill in this regard. We must not allow our standards of safety and of environmental conformity, so strongly fought for in the coal mining industry, to be debased in any way. On the contrary, those standards must be strengthened if we can think of any ways of doing so.
Subsidence has been mentioned and we have heard that the Government have thoughts about how it could be dealt with. They have decided that it would be inopportune for them to cover it in the present Bill, but they have committed themselves to coming forward with a Bill on the subject before long. Like the noble Lord, Lord Graham, I wish to hear a little more about this because it is a matter of major concern not only within the mining industry but for those affected by mining. Those of us who are involved in or connected with the industry will be aware of many serious instances of subsidence where people have suffered seriously and not been able to obtain the compensation to which one would normally feel they were entitled. We wish to hear more about that.
Finally, I am delighted that the noble Lord, Lord Graham of Edmonton, referred to minestone. Minestone is the residual product from coal mining. Over the centuries it has tended to be built into the slag heaps that have been a well-known sign of the industrial Midlands and north of our country. During the period in which I was involved in the

1047
mining industry, we tried to turn these to good and positive use. We found that by grading and analysing the minestone, we could use it for the purposes to which the noble Lord referred —namely, road infill, foundations and for converting into aggregate of various kinds in certain cases. We built up quite an organisation to do that.
I think that it would be helpful if the noble Viscount could respond to the questions put to him in this regard by the noble Lord, Lord Graham, and tell us whether the Government have in mind in any way stimulating and facilitating the expansion of the operation. There are many obstacles in the way of building this up. I was startled to learn when we began the operation that if a slag heap, a pit heap, were left totally idle, it was not rateable. However as soon as one started improving the environment by taking the stuff away and making some use of it, it became highly rateable. We had many arguments with local authorities about this because in some cases we found that the level of rates being levied was higher than anything we could have earned by taking the stuff away. That seemed to me to be rather peculiar.
Under the new system, with the changes in the rating of industrial activities and operations, perhaps the noble Viscount could explain to us what the rating position will be. Will it be regarded —as in my opinion it should be —as a positive asset to the environment and therefore not rated at all? Or if it is to be rated, will regard be given to these wider issues?
To sum up, I welcome the Bill because of the major capital reconstruction which it brings to the industry and which has been so long required. I wish the industry every possible success as a result of the reconstruction. There are aspects of the Bill which have been touched on both by the noble Lord, Lord Graham, and myself to which we will wish to return at Report stage. I believe that our great mining industry, with its great past and massive contribution to our country's affairs, will be able to contribute even more in the future in its present condition with much greater efficiency, now assisted with the capital reconstruction.
12.26 p.m.
Baroness Stedman: My Lords, I too wish to thank the Minister for the clear way in which he introduced the Bill this morning and also for sending out copies of his Notes on Clauses which have been most useful to me. I have been making a second venture into matters to do with coal, my first being some 40 years ago. For a brief period at the same time as the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, I was a member of the national coal consumers' council. However I speak purely as a lay person today, without any great knowledge of the industry or what is going on.
I welcome the proposals for the restructuring of the coal board's accounts. However I am concerned about the same two matters as regards which previous speakers expressed concern. I refer, first, to the system of compensation for subsidence which the Minister has said needs separate legislation; and
1048
secondly, to the open cast mining which needs much stronger conditions on the environmental side.
The Waddilove Report in 1984 made a number of recommendations to improve the compensation procedure. The Government accepted the need for future legislation to take account of these recommendations. Therefore while the Bill is primarily concerned about British Coal's finances, I am disappointed that it has not been used as a vehicle to settle the compensation liabilities which will not cease if and when British Coal is privatised.
I also speak today as one of the vice-presidents of the Association of District Councils. In several district council areas there has been serious damage by subsidence. I wish to see the Bill provide an opportunity to ease the plight of the residents in those districts. There was a conference at Mansfield in November 1989 attended by a range of speakers from the Country Landowners' Association to the British Property Federation and from most of the local authorities in the East Midlands and the South Yorkshire area.
That conference unanimously urged the Secretary of State for Energy to introduce a Bill based on the recommendations of the Waddilove Report. The first request was to amend existing legislation by publishing information as to future coal mine workings and give information about past workings; and where it was reasonable to do so, about the repairs that had been carried out or compensation that had been paid in respect of individual properties. The second request was to carry out thorough repairs and the payment of adequate compensation in respect of surface damage caused by coal mining without the constraints of the present six-year rule. That same conference last year asked the Secretary of State to consider incorporating into legislation a simple, inexpensive system of truly independent local arbitration or adjudication to resolve disputes between British Coal and claimants more quickly as regards repairs and compensation for subsidence damage.
In rereading the Waddilove Report and the Government's response I was reminded of my visit to West Cumbria on other matters during the previous election campaign. I also visited a housing estate in Egremont. Many of the tenants had purchased their council houses and they had spent a lot more money on modernisation and improvements. Then the subsidence began. Those who had not bought their houses were being rehoused by their district council and their existing estate houses were boarded up. However, those who had invested their life savings in their homes could obtain no redress. The council could not repurchase their homes, even at the price the tenants had paid for them. The houses could not be sold on the open market because no one wanted to buy them as there were holes in the roads and paths and the six-year rule applied. There must be many similar cases of hardship throughout the coalfield area.
Clause 4 of the Bill relates to licences for coal production and exploration. The British Coal Corporation will be able to give licences for opencast operations not likely to exceed, or greatly exceed,

1049
250,000 tonnes. That is a tenfold increase on the present limit of 25,000 tonnes. Local councils are rightly worried about the environmental implications of opencast mining. They are worried that this clause will increase the number and the extent of opencast operations. I share the concern of the noble Lords, Lord Graham and Lord Ezra. I do not think that Clause 4 faces up to the environmental problems and concerns.
In a debate in another place on 27th October Moynihan stated:
"There is no Government target for coal production or opencast output. That is properly a matter for the market place to determine". —[Official Report, Commons, 27/10/89; col. 1353.]
However, those statements are of concern to local authorities. They are, even now, negotiating with the opencast executive a national assessment, but this assessment explicitly excludes the contribution from the licensed sector.
Paragraph 8(1) of the draft assessment now being prepared states:
"During the past few years licensed opencast output has risen from 0·8 million tonnes per annum to over 1·7 million tonnes per annum. Even in the difficult marketing situation in 1986 and 1987 due to falling oil prices, this output has not reduced significantly … British Coal assume that this level of output from the licensed sector will remain at approximately this level".
I ask the Minister whether that statement is true or false. If it is true, why is there such urgency to increase site licensing from 25,000 tonnes to 250,000 tonnes? What environmental protection can be assured and how will it be done?
In seeking to increase the licensable tonnage from 25,000 to 250,000 tonnes, Clause 4 simply reiterates the wording of the Coal Industry Nationalisation Act 1946. That is the Act which fixed the amount of coal which could be won from a licensed site at an amount,
"not likely to exceed, or greatly to exceed, 25,000 tonnes".
The words,
"not likely to exceed, or greatly to exceed, 25,000 tonnes",
might be appropriate for such a small figure. However, when such a large figure as 250,000 tonnes is in question, it would be extremely difficult for anyone to decide what amount of coal was not greatly in excess of 250,000 tonnes.
I am assured that under the present arrangements an increase of 100 per cent. has on occasions appeared to be regarded by British Coal as not greatly to exceed the licensable tonnage. That kind of latitude would be inappropriate if we are talking in terms of 250,000 tonnes.
The second cause for concern is that, having regard to the considerable increase in the likely size of licensed opencast coal sites, there is no requirement in the Bill for the licensed sector of the industry to have specific regard to environmental considerations, as is the case with British Coal proposals. Like the other speakers before me, I believe that Clause 4 should be amended to incorporate the wording comparable with that already included in Section 3 of the Opencast Coal Act 1958. That would require that as regards the licensed working of coal by opencast operations British Coal should have regard:
1050
"to the desirability of preserving natural beauty, of conserving flora, fauna and geological or physiographical features of special interest, and of protecting buildings and other objects of architectural or historic interest … any effect which the proposals would have on the natural beauty of the countryside or on any such flora, fauna, features, buildings or objects".
As a lay person it seems to me that the national assessment will be too biased in respect of the economic situation of British Coal and will not consider sufficiently the environmental and social costs of opencast workings. The planning system has shown that it cannot control the noise, the dust and the extra heavy traffic associated with opencast sites.
Opencast mining can place an intolerable burden on the local population. It often occurs on the edge of fairly densely populated areas which are served by substandard roads and a road infrastructure which was not built to take heavy lorries. I believe that at later stages of the Bill we shall need two amendments on the lines of my suggestions. They would ameliorate some of the potentially adverse effects of Clause 4.
12.37 p.m.
Lord Forester: My Lords, the noble Baroness, Lady Stedman, was concerned at speaking to your Lordships for the second time on this subject. My temerity in addressing your Lordships for the first time is very much greater. I must declare an interest. I also apologise for my voice, which appears likely to leave me at any stage.
Clause 4 of the Bill allows British Coal's licensees to seek, through the courts, a right to search and bore for coal. It increases the number of people allowed to work underground to 150 and the size of opencast sites to 250,000 tonnes, as we have heard. I welcome those changes if their objective is to encourage the efficient and proper working of relatively small volumes of reserves which British Coal would not work. Such workings would increase employment and, in total, they could make a substantial contribution to our overall coal supply. If such coal can be made available to the market, at prices which are competitive with the ever-increasing competition from overseas, our balance of payments will benefit significantly.
Surely nothing should be allowed to inhibit the wider development of the licensed coal mining industries permitted by this Bill, provided stringent environmental safeguards and consideration for reasonable local concerns are properly taken into account. I stress that environmental safeguards should be stringent. This environmental point was debated at length in another place. I wish to make that point as the Minister touched upon it. Planning permission is still needed for opencast mining. It is needed for any mining. The Government recently introduced new planning guidelines on opencast mining which spell out more fully and more tightly than ever before the environmental criteria which must be met. They include environmental impact assessments and reinstatement.
I am happy to think that I have some "greenness" about me. The noble Lord, Lord Graham, was concerned about "the greens". County structure plans presume against planning permission for

1051
mining unless the ground has been worked previously. However, making safe former workings and removing hazards such as mine shafts can provide a benefit to the community. In my view, private operators make an excellent job of reinstatement nowadays. I should be happy to take the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, to see what the private sector can do. There are places where private operators have done a better job than the National Coal Board has done in the past. I must stand up for myself on that point.
Apart from those environmental aspects there is an inhibiting factor in the Bill. I should like to highlight the fact that the Bill confirms the continuing powers of British Coal to decide, at its sole option, whether or not to grant licences for the right to work coal. The Coal Industry Nationalisation Act 1946 was enacted at a time of coal shortage and lack of investment. From that time until the 1960s and 1970s the coal industry developed and licences were issued by the National Coal Board to encourage numerous licensees to produce as much coal as possible. Latterly the licensed mining industry has not had so much encouragement. Tonnage quotas have been imposed by British Coal. Penal royalty rents, sometimes amounting to more than 50 per cent. of the value of the coal, and greater than any other royalties in mineral industries throughout the world, were payable to British Coal. At one time British Coal charged £16 per tonne on coal worth only £22 per tonne. Those royalty rents are still more than 30 per cent. of the value of the coal.
To make matters worse, since privatisation of the electricity industry, British Coal has negotiated a satisfactory three-year contract with National Power and PowerGen. The licensees have not been treated so generously, being allowed only 76 per cent. of that price. The noble Lord, Lord Ezra, spoke earlier of dual prices. This seems to be another case of dual prices.
That low price and the high royalties charged by British Coal are serious enough problems. A further problem is the system of allowing British Coal to license its only United Kingdom competitors on whatever terms it wishes —either unconditionally or subject to conditions. That has done nothing to encourage the private coal industry. British Coal is allowed to resist or refuse applications without giving reasons for refusal or for imposing conditions. The Bill gives licensees the right to go to court to overthrow the unreasonable refusal, or the unreasonable terms, of a landowner to grant the right to search and bore for coal. There is no similar legal right for the licensees to question, reverse, or even appeal against unreasonable terms or the refusal of British Coal to grant a licence for the extraction of coal. British Coal is judge and jury. The noble Lord, Lord Mason, used that expression with regard to mining subsidence. British Coal is also judge and jury in the granting of licences. It does not have to give reasons or show its figures. Unknown quantities, due to seam tolerances, previous workings, gob slack and so on cannot be discussed.
1052
In Europe coal generally belongs to the state and its extraction is licensed by the state in the form of concessions. I should like to point out that the European Commission has an interest in and legal responsibility for the promotion of effective competition in the coal mining sector. The present situation might be considered by our European partners to be a restraint of trade advantageous to British Coal. As things stand, as in the case of British agriculture, licensees do not have a level playing field on which to compete in Europe.
In conclusion, it would surely be only equitable and give considerable encouragement to the licensed mining industry if the licensing of the right to work coal was undertaken by a body independent of British Coal and if royalties and wayleaves could be charged at levels more in keeping with those charged by other national and international mineral industries. We should all like to see the nettle of mining subsidence firmly grasped. Unfortunately, all those points were the subject of amendments in another place which were rejected with a suggestion that we wait for partial privatisation at some stage in the future.
I do not believe that we can wait that long, especially when British Coal is holding back on the granting of new licences and the single market is just around the corner. As an absolute minimum should not the licensed mining industry have a right of appeal against unreasonable refusal or the unreasonable terms demanded by British Coal? Without the right of appeal the benefits of Clause 4 are questionable. I urge my noble friend to consider an appeal procedure.
12.47 p.m.
Lord Mason of Barnsley: My Lords, this Bill is an enabling Bill for the eventual privatisation of the coal mining industry. The restructuring clauses and the write-off of £5 billion are clearly indicative of that intention. British Coal will welcome those clauses, but I believe that the miners and their unions will view with apprehension and grave concern the long-term view of their industry and their jobs as set out in the Bill.
I am sorry to say that the miners' strike of 1984–85 not only paved the way for the ruthless run-down of the mining industry over the past four years and hastened pit closures. It also provided a reason for many of the measures in the Bill and gave impetus towards the privatisation of the coal industry.
That strike was an unparalleled disaster. Nothing was gained and all was lost. Twelve months of fanatical leadership exploited mineworkers' loyalty and financially ruined many thousands of miners' families. Now the National Union of Mineworkers —my union, of which I have been a member since I was 14 years of age —is powerless, industrially impotent, financially on its knees, with no strength left for collective trade union bargaining. Indeed, it is no longer a national union. The richest coalfield broke away as a result of the no-ballot strike. In its wake British Coal and this Tory Government were cock-a-hoop. With no serious collective opposition they embarked on a pit closure

1053
programme with a vengeance. They did so dictatorially, closing far more pits than would have been closed had it not been for the miners' strike.
The miners' leadership of 1984 has a lot to answer for. The result was a ruined union which gave the go-ahead for the Tory Government to punish the coalfield communities. So now in this Bill we see a five-year plan, the write-off of debts, a restructuring plan —a slimming operation in fact —and we know full well that more pits are to close and there will be thousands more job losses. Of course in this Bill provision is made for redundancies. That is to be welcomed. Many young miners —young miners this time —will soon be cast on to the industrial scrapheap with little prospect of a job, especially in the coalfield communities of South Yorkshire and the Barnsley areas where unemployment is still over twice the national average.
I am concerned about the future of our deep-mined coal industry. I must say that I have been staggered and disgusted at the cruel pace of the pit closure programme. British Coal need not now consult. It can and has with impunity closed pits, declared redundancies and ruined mining communities on a scale that was frightening. It created a wave of misery and unemployment such as we had not seen since the 1930s. Although miners received good redundancy payments, their jobs and future prospects at work vanished and, what is not fully appreciated by the Government, many supportive industries had to close also. Their employees did not receive any redundancy payments. Many lost jobs and there are no future prospects in those dying communities. That became a major knock-on effect of increasing unemployment.
I know that British Coal and the Government boast constantly about increased productivity: that is to say, we produce the same tonnage as before the strike with half the men. I concede that £2 million a day in investment in more mechanisation and new sinkings have played their part but there is no doubt whatever that massive manpower cuts made the productivity figures look impressive. I believe that the men —the miners, those still at work during this traumatic phase of industrial decline —who have achieved those results have been quite magnificent. It is those men who need our support.
Since the strike the cost in human terms in our coal communities has been colossal. Ninety pits have closed and 130,000 men have been thrown on to the dole. There has been the run-down of our mining villages and despair in many families who suffered for 12 months with no income during the strike and fed the pawnbrokers in order to survive. Then came the insensitivity of British Coal and the Government who embarked on such a callous drive to cut back on the industry and did not worry fully about the social consequences of their actions. There was no real regional policy of aid to cope with the situation. Therefore history will record that period of shameless and uncaring government.
There has been one noticeable effort made by British Coal to offset the job losses. That was the creation of British Coal Enterprise Limited. It is the only real body to assist in producing alternative new
1054
job opportunities in the traditional coal mining areas of Britain. I believe that Merrick Spanton, the chairman, Tony Hewitt, the chief executive, and their board have now shaken off the criticisms of their efforts in the early years. Their enterprise is now bearing fruit. With a variety of schemes, projects that they have launched, their managed workshop activities and some ex-employees of British Coal resettled in jobs under the job and career change scheme, they can now claim to have helped 32,000 men gain some form of employment. It is a far cry from the 130,000 miners' jobs lost plus many thousands more in allied industries and all those who suffered in the wake of that strike.
But it is not the answer to our problems. It has been a creditable achievement in its time but certainly it is only a pinprick in tackling the size of our unemployment problems in the coal field communities. Therefore I should like to ask the Minister what the Department of Trade and Industry, the Department of Energy and the European Commission are planning to do to deal with the unemployment problems in those dying coal field areas.
Prior to this Bill two things happened that bode ill for those working our deep coal mines: the passing of the Associated British Ports Bill and the contents of the leaked energy policy paper prepared by the Department of Energy for Cabinet decision. The ports Bill gave the green light to a major increase in cheap coal imports. We are already importing about 12 million tonnes of coal per year from 12 different countries. Those tonnages alone have meant the loss of between 8,000 and 10,000 miners' jobs. When the ports have expanded for business they will have the capacity to receive and deal with up to 30 million tonnes of coal imports per year. Much of that tonnage is subsidised or quarried, and in many cases the use of cheap labour is employed. I believe it to be totally unfair competition. Even it it is only £5 per tonne cheaper than deep-mined British coal, with 12 million tonnes coming in annually that represents a massive saving. But I stress that every tonne of imports put our deep-miners' jobs at risk.
Nearer home and in relation to coal imports, the leaked energy paper notes that even with the phasing in of coal imports over a five-year period, as the Secretary of State states:
"British Coal will require substantial further adjustment".
Hence there is the restructuring in this Bill.
There is no doubt about the intention of the Government: there are to be yet more crippling job losses in the British coal industry. It is indicated in the leaked document that the privatisation of the electricity industry will result in the loss of 18,000 coal miners' jobs. Allied with the effects of cheap coal imports —a cutback in the take of British Coal to our power stations and the further substantial readjustment of the coal industry—there is the likelihood that there will be a reduction in the workforce of 30,000 jobs within the next four to five years. That is a cutback of one-third of British Coal's deep-mines workforce. Those are awesome figures and I should like the Minister to address the House

1055
on those prognostications when he winds up the debate.
This Bill contains two more unacceptable measures: a tenfold increase in opencast coal mining per site, which is a diabolical polluting activity; and an expansion in private or licensed mining activity. Again both those measures will result in a further cutback of deep-mining employment.
I cannot understand how the Government can escape the charge of being two-faced and hypocritical. How can they pretend to be bent on an environmental drive and urge the polluter pays policy when they are boosting the worst polluters in Britain? When I was Minister of Power opencast output was 7 million tonnes. It is now 16·8 million tonnes. This Bill will give the opencast executive the right to mine sites at up to 250,000 tonnes per site —a tenfold increase on present site output. The total tonnage may well rise to 20 million tonnes of opencast coal per year.
That will mean that there are thousands of people in coal mining communities (because that is where the coal is and not in the South of England) who have for generations suffered industrial pollution, noise, smoke, respiratory diseases from heavy industry, muckstacks and opencasting —indeed, the many forms of environmental pollution —will now be subject to a tenfold increase in production from each site. As we know from experience, objectors, including the local authorities, invariably have their appeals turned down by the Government. With 25,000 tonnes of output, that polluting menace could last for five years; but with 250,000 tonnes of output per site it is likely to last between seven and 10 years. That may prove to be the norm. Therefore there will be many more years of dust drifting into homes and gardens, constant noise and vibration from machinery, lorries and blasting. The landscape will be ruined for years and one cannot bring back those years.
However, one asks: what of the old folks? Their properties are devalued —blighted in the eventide of their lives. They have to suffer misery and unhappiness. Some of them die in that state during the seven to 10 year period of operations. The proposed expansion is an insensitive decision. It cares not for enhancing the quality of life. It will certainly vastly increase many forms of pollution. Therefore in my opinion these opencast vandalisers of our people and our communities should be curbed.
If the Government have adopted the principle of making the polluter pay, I ask this question. What will these polluters pay to our affected people? Every tonne of opencast coal in the past has threatened, and in the future will increasingly threaten, future job prospects in deep mining. I am aware of the profit margin and the argument of helping British Coal's survivability. However, deep mines when closed on grounds other than being worked out are a loss that can rarely ever be regained. Opencast coal can be called upon when urgency demands, and that is where it should lie —in reserve.
On that last point, much the same could be said in relation to private or licensed mines. Many of
1056
them are drift mines: coal mines that are near the surface, easily mined where necessary. But again, it is another expansion, jeopardising jobs in deep mines, increasing the manpower per private pit from 30 to 150 men. I know that safety of men in these small mines does not compare with the deep mine safety record. The Minister may say that with this proposed expansion more modern machinery will be accommodated and safety will be increased.
However, the expansion introduces another element of unfair competition. There is no comparison with the massive investment of sinking and opening up a deep mine. Therefore more of the deep mine workers' jobs are at risk, especially if one bears in mind the increased annual output as a result of this manpower increase.
When the Minister winds up, perhaps he can reassure me about the problem of redundancies and that there will be no return to compulsory redundancies during this next phase of cut-backs. Perhaps he can also reassure me that the traditional concessionary fuel allowances will continue for miners, retired miners and miners' widows. Perhaps he will comment on the project in which I have a personal interest, the fluidised bed power station project. I financed its birth in 1968. There was the promise of a highly efficient environmentally clean coal generating plant. Do the Government believe that it has a future?
The Bill, typical of the curate's egg, has good and bad contents. Unfortunately, I believe that they are mostly bad and ominous for the future of Britain's deep-mined coal industry. I concede that there is continuing investment and I welcome the redundancy payments clauses and the provision for industrial deafness. However, one has to recognise that with all the other measures, if the Conservatives win the next general election it will be a simple task to privatise the coal industry. The restructuring that is planned is a major step towards preparation for privatisation. It will result in a much smaller coal industry reduced to manageable profitable units. However, I warn that even those will have to fight to survive against the fierce competition from the use of North Sea gas in power stations, the increased tonnage from the private licensed mines, the rising tonnages of cheap coal imports and opencast mining expansion.
It is an energy policy that is fraught with danger, especially on security of supply. Our indigenous deep-mined coal industry will be reduced to a skeleton as coal consumers fight in the market-place for short-term cheap supplies. I am afraid that the Bill bodes ill for our deep-mined coal industry. I visualise a cut-back in manpower to little more than 50,000 men by 1994 with fewer than 50 coal mines surviving.
With a disunited trade union opposition —sad as that may be—powerless to oppose British Coal and the Government, it is incumbent upon us, especially on this side of the House, to use all our democratic powers of persuasion to warn the Government of the serious consequences of the course that they are pursuing: that is, their intent to cripple one of our major indigenous fuel industries. If there is to be

1057
any salvation for the deep-mined coal industry it lies in the return of a Labour Government. That, above all, I believe must now be our objective, and I think that we still have time to achieve it.
1.8 p.m.
Lord Norrie: My Lords, I see this as a short and technical Bill designed to introduce new financial and licensing arrangements for the coal industry. I welcome it. However, I am sure that noble Lords will be relieved to learn that I have no intention of embarking on a learned discussion about either its technical or financial merits.
The purpose of my taking part in the debate is quite simple. It is to establish in the mind of the Minister that it is a Bill with enormous impact on the environment. I also hope that the Bill will not leave our House without some important improvements designed to minimise the adverse consequences of coal extraction —a point brought out most forcefully by the noble Lord, Lord Graham of Edmonton. He and the noble Baroness, Lady Stedman, reminded us that deep mines can cause subsidence and noise disturbance. I would add that they cause physical damage to the landscape through the construction of unsightly surface buildings and tips. We all remember the concern that was generated by the Vale of Belvoir application in the early 1980s, and there are similar anxieties about the proposed increase in mining in the South Warwickshire coalfield.
However, opencast coal extraction creates environmental problems and hazards of an altogether higher order. Whole landscapes can be altered and people's lives can be devastated. While restoration is often possible, and should always be encouraged, even the best restoration cannot replace the intimate, mature landscapes that have been swept away. I am sure that we all agree that where such operations are necessary—and of course some opencast is necessary—they should always be governed by the highest possible environmental standards, a point reinforced by the noble Lord, Lord Ezra.
My concerns about the Bill therefore are straightforward. It must provide the means to ensure that environmental considerations are given the utmost priority.
In 1986 when legislation was last passed on the issue, the amount of private sector activity in opencast coal was small. Of the 15 million tonnes of coal extracted in 1984, 95 per cent. was extracted by British Coal and less than 5 per cent. under licence by the private sector. By 1988 the percentage from licensed sites had risen to 11 per cent.
The Bill proposes to increase the limit on private sector sites tenfold; that is, from 25,000 tonnes per annum to 250,000 tonnes per annum. I welcome in principle the increase in private sector activity but it would be wrong for it to take place without also extending the environmental duties to the private sector.
In 1986 when the Housing and Planning Act was passing through the House, my noble friend Lord Ridley and the noble Baronesses, Lady Nicol and
1058
Lady David, persuaded the Government to reinstate the amenity duty on British Coal, governing its activities in the opencast coal sector. That now appears as paragraph 1 of Schedule 8 to the Housing and Planning Act. Governed by this amenity duty, British Coal has continued to improve its environmental performance and has shown itself willing to take its environmental responsibilities seriously. For example, British Coal engaged the British Trust for Conservation. Volunteers (BTCV)—of which I am president —to carry out an exciting tree planting project on a former opencast site which is now the Rother Valley country park in Yorkshire. It used BTCV's commercial arm —Conservation Practice Limited —for restoration projects at Marley Hill near Gateshead and to create a nature reserve with Northumberland Wildlife Trust at Druridge Bay.
In spite of a reassuring green speech by my noble friend Lord Forester, I am sorry to say that the private sector opencast site operators have by no means such a good record. In 1984 Durham County Council published a report by the County Planning Officers Society entitled Problems on Licensed Opencast Sites. It described sites where environmental conditions had been breached and restoration conditions had not been fulfilled. There have also been a number of cases where operations have been carried out above the legal limit of 25,000 tonnes per annum. In 1987 that matter drew criticism from the inquiry of the House of Commons Energy Committee into the coal industry. Therefore, the private sector has a long way to go before it can start emulating the fine record of British Coal.
I hope that the Minister will look sympathetically on the proposals to extend British Coal's amenity duty to the private sector which I and other noble Lords hope to air during the Committee stage. Surely we should aim to make the Bill as environmentally friendly as the Opencast Coal Act 1958 and the Housing and Planning Act 1986, building on the most recent example of the Electricity Act where new environmental duties were accepted last year.
1.10 p.m.
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, we have had a good and wide-ranging debate on coal and I shall try to deal with as many of the points raised as I can. But let me first re-state what this Bill is seeking to do. Its primary purpose is to give British Coal a proper financial foundation on which to build and develop its business and to give the corporation a realistic prospect of future viability. To that end the Bill will go a long way to wipe the slate clean of the overhang of past losses and long-term liabilities. It will recognise the true earnings potential of the corporation's colliery assets in a competitive market; and it recognises that there will need to be further restructuring over the next three years.
All that should help to complete British Coal's transformation from a subsidised institution into a successful and free-standing business. At the same time, by liberalising the industry through increasing the limits on licensed mining, we are hoping to increase the opportunities for private sector

1059
investment in safer working methods and more modern equipment.
I should like to deal with some of the points which your Lordships have raised. The noble Lord, Lord Graham of Edmonton, rightly said that the coal industry is not just about money; it is also about men. He said that the coal industry is about flesh and blood and he drew attention to a play which was performed many years ago, as he reminded his noble friend Lord Mason, "Close the Coalhouse Door". We all understand that in the past there have been great tragedies in coal mines and the noble Lord drew attention to the dangers that affect all those men working underground.
What has received most attention during the debate is the environmental aspect of the opencast operations. The point was raised by all noble Lords who have spoken; the noble Baroness, Lady Stedman, and the noble Lords, Lord Graham, Lord Ezra, Lord Forester and Lord Mason, and my noble friend Lord Norrie. It is essential to strike a balance between the environmental impact of opencast mining and the benefits to the national economy. That is why in May 1988 the Government introduced new planning guidelines on opencast mining which were referred to by my noble friend Lord Forester. He said that the Government have insisted on full environmental impact assessments on all but the small sites.
In recent years environmental expectations have continued to rise. By general agreement the UK opencast industry now finds itself operating under the most stringent planning system in the world. Many opencast operations take place on derelict industrial land which is then restored to a high standard. That is a positive gain to local communities. The opencast industry overall has been responsible for the reclamation of 16,000 acres of dereliction during the last 20 years. Local communities often benefit from creative restoration projects; for example, sports facilities, road improvements, nature reserves, reafforestation and a wide range of other schemes which restore variety and quality to the landscape. That matter was touched upon by my noble friend Lord Norrie.
Far from being callous, the opencast industry has shown great willingness to listen to what local communities want. We want to see opencasting, which is 30 per cent. cheaper than deep-mined coal, contributing more to our national economy, always consistent with each individual site being acceptable environmentally. That must be demonstrated rigorously through the planning system.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: My Lords, does the Minister appreciate that he is describing an aspiration and an ambition? However, as mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Norrie, myself and others, the evidence from the Council for the Protection of Rural England and from the planning officers in Durham shows that in reality the operators of opencast coal mining are not only exceeding their licence and getting away with it but they are not fulfilling their obligations. My noble friend Lord
1060
Williams who will be dealing with the Bill in Committee is the President of the Council for the Protection of Rural Wales. He will bring to bear the evidence from Wales. Does the Minister not appreciate that there is a wide gap between what his advisers are telling him is the position in theory and what we know to be the position in reality?
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, I agree that mistakes have been made about the reinstatement of some of the opencast sites. However, it would be wrong to judge the future from the past. As I have said, the reinstatement is controlled by one of the strictest planning regulations in the world. I draw the noble Lord's attention to the environmental impact assessments which must be undertaken in the future before the new licences are granted.
I should now like to deal with subsidence, as mentioned by the noble Lords, Lord Graham and Lord Ezra, and the noble Baroness, Lady Stedman. The Government are well aware of the widespread concern about the issue and of the human problems that arise from subsidence as well as the damage to property. The number of new claims is continuing to fall and so too is the backlog of outstanding claims. Last year there were 9,600 new claims compared with almost 13,000 in the previous year. And the backlog of claims has fallen from 37,000 in 1986–87 to around 26,000 last year.
Secondly, many of the Waddilove Committee recommendations that do not need legislation have already been implemented and the Government are continuing to see what more can be done. Finally, as my right honourable friend the Secretary of State confirmed during the Report stage of the Bill in another place, the Government are committed to introducing a Bill on subsidence at the earliest practical opportunity.
As I explained earlier in the debate, it is not practical to tack subsidence provisions onto the present Bill. However, I shall take away from this debate the clear message that your Lordships' House has attached great urgency and importance to subsidence legislation.
The noble Baroness, Lady Stedman, drew my attention to the six-year rule about subsidence. The Government recognise that, as currently applied, the rule has been strongly criticised. For that reason we are proposing that claims should be allowable six years from when the damage occurred or six years from when the claimant first had reasonable grounds for noticing the damage. The noble Baroness will appreciate that that is a great step forward.
As regards safety, for myself I feel that safety must be one of the highest priorities of future legislation and of the future of the licensed mining industry. I have to say that the accident rate in licensed mines has been greater than that of British Coal, as the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, said. However, the accident rate in licensed mines has declined over the past three years. That does not mean that the Government have become complacent: the accident rate is still higher than they would wish. However, I should like to feel that the mining inspectorate —which employed one mining

1061
inspector for every 3,195 miners employed by British Coal in 1979 and now employs one inspector for about every 2,000 miners —which is a great improvement —is now up to strength and has no vacancies.
I shall carefully note other points on safety. I appreciate what the noble Lord said. I am not trying to hide anything about the safety requirements but I repeat that I feel that the increase in the number of those involved in deep mining will allow the introduction of new and modernised equipment which will go a long way to helping in that regard.
The noble Lord, Lord Graham of Edmonton, also asked me about minestone and whether the Minestone Executive could be included more in the several engineering works which are taken on. I understand that decisions on awarding contracts for road construction are determined by the Department of Transport on the basis of competitive tendering. It seems that the Minestone Executive attempted to bid for contracts for which minestone was not entirely suitable. In 1986 the Department of Transport made that clear. The Minestone Executive should ensure that the materials that it can supply meet tender specifications. Also, where bids are acceptable the price must be competitive with alternative materials. There is scope for greater use of minestone in road construction programmes and it is up to the Minestone Executive to ensure that it submits competitive bids to the appropriate specification. I know that the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, who also spoke about the Minestone Executive will understand those requirements.
I turn to one or two points made by the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, which I have not already covered. He said in his opening remarks that the coal industry has made a great contribution to this country and I believe that all noble Lords agree with him on that. The security of supply which is now guaranteed by the new contract with the generators provides for a sale of 70 per cent. of the mining production. That is a great step forward and will ensure for the next three years, which may need some restructuring, that there is at least a security of supply.
The noble Lord also asked me a more technical question about the progress of the revaluation of assets. Our expectation is that the revaluation will be completed in time to be reflected in the corporation's accounts of 1989–90.
My noble friend Lord Forester asked me about royalties which British Coal charge. Royalties for opencast licences are indeed very high at about £11 per tonne. I believe that that is the highest paid to any coal owner in the Western world. Royalties are and will remain a matter for British Coal and the licensees, but we have made it clear to British Coal that royalties must be set at a level which will permit efficiently managed operators to develop their business profitably. Given the squeeze on operators' margins over the past 18 months I expect British Coal to look very hard at a case for a royalty reduction.
On licences, so long as British Coal owns the coal, a final decision about licences must be a matter for it. However, it has agreed to publish the criteria
1062
which it applies to licensing decisions. In particular, it has specifically promised to do its best to make any objections to a licence known to the applicant at an early stage. It has agreed to set up an internal appeals arrangement so that disputed applications can be referred to a national level.
The noble Lord, Lord Mason, with his knowledge of the industry, gave a résumé of what had happened in the past. Of course, he would understand about the need for pit closures and how necessary they sometimes are in economic terms as a result of exhaustion and restructuring, which this Bill specifically confronts.
After all, it was in the days of a Labour Government, of which the noble Lord was a Member, between 1964 and 1970 and 1974 and 1979, that 295 pits were closed down with a loss of over 190,000 jobs. I do not wish to make political capital from that but I wish to indicate that in the coal industry there have been times when restructuring has been necessary. That time was one and this is another.
The noble Lord quite rightly drew to the attention of the House the success which the British Coal enterprise had in creating a number of jobs —and I think he said 36,000. Its costs will continue to be supported by the restructuring grant in this Bill and I believe that Clause 4 will help to provide new mining jobs by raising the limits on the licensed mining sector.
The Government also welcome the European Commission's new RECHAR programme for revitalising depressed mining areas. We shall be working hard to ensure that our coalfields receive their fair share of the funds available.
Turning to another point made by the noble Lord, he asked me about an assurance that there would be no compulsory redundancies. I hope that British Coal will be able to continue with its policy of relying entirely on voluntary redundancies. Obviously, I cannot give a firm assurance on that because it is ultimately a matter for British Coal. Nothing in this Bill affects the entitlement of concessionaires. The Bill ensures that British Coal has the finance to meet the entitlements.
Also, the noble Lord asked me —and I am glad that he gave me notice of these questions —about the future of the fluidised bed project. The Government are making up to £8 million available for the next stage of the Grimethorpe project. We hope that it will prove the technique for high-efficiency coal burning to the point where it is carried forward for commercial application.
The noble Lord, Lord Mason, also drew attention to imports. I believe I have said before from this Dispatch Box that many of the imports are special requirements for industry and are not available from the supplies mined by British Coal. The Government's policy is not to restrict imports on coal. Decisions on coal purchases, whether from indigenous or imported sources, must be for the commercial judgment of those concerned on the basis of a willing buyer and a willing seller.
I think I have dealt with all the points made that I have noted, but if on reading Hansard I find that

1063
I have missed any I will write to the noble Lords concerned. I conclude by saying that this Bill is a recognition of the importance of coal to this country, while also reflecting the need to develop an increasingly competitive coal market. The dramatic gain in coal productivity of over 75 per cent. is an achievement which compares with any in Britain's industrial history. Coal has long held a special place in this country's industrial history and it remains a staple fuel. Coal-burning power stations provide three-quarters of our electricity supplies.
The Bill will lift the burden of the past from the coal industry and enable it to face the future with more certainty and continue to drive towards higher productivity and a more competitive future. It is a Bill that faces reality and offers practical help where appropriate. I commend the Bill to your Lordships.
On Question, Bill read a second time, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

Motor Trade (Consumer Protection) Bill [H.L.]
1.31 p.m.
Lord Ezra: My Lords, I beg to move that the Bill be now read a second time.
I should like to express my appreciation to those noble Lords who are spending this part of Friday afternoon in the House to take part in this important deliberation. I must declare an interest. I am president of the Institute of Trading Standards Administration, a body which has been for a long time concerned about the matters dealt with in this Bill. Indeed, it has played a major part, together with the Automobile Association, in doing the work leading up to the preparation of the Bill.
I remind your Lordships that about 7·5 million secondhand cars are sold each year. Regrettably many are in an unroadworthy condition or with false mileages shown on the clock, or odometer. The purpose of this Bill is to give added protection to the purchasers of used cars. Consumer complaints about secondhand motor vehicles have consistently topped the list of categories collated annually by the Office of Fair Trading. The bulk of traders undoubtedly carry on their businesses properly, but an important minority continue to trade in a way which defrauds and misleads consumers and reflects badly on the trade as a whole.
It was for that reason that in 1987 a joint committee was set up under the chairmanship of Sir Gordon Borrie, Director General of Fair Trading, to look into this whole matter. The membership of that body was wide ranging indeed. It consisted of the four local authority associations, the Consumers Association, the National Consumer Council, the National Association of Citizens Advice Bureaux, The Royal Automobile Club, the Automobile Association, the Scottish Motor Trade Association, the Society of Motor Auctions, the Society of Motor Manufacturers and Traders, the Vehicle Builders and Repairers Association and the Motor Agents Association. I read out that list in order to emphasise
1064
the importance which all those bodies connected with the motor business attach to these matters.
As a result of that wide-ranging inquiry conducted by those bodies, a letter was written by Sir Gordon Borrie on 29th December 1987 to the then Secretary of State for Transport with specific recommendations dealing with the sale of unroadworthy vehicles and the clocking of odometers. I regret that relatively little progress on those recommendations has since been achieved. Therefore, this Bill is an attempt to take the matter forward. A similar initiative is being undertaken in another place.
I now turn to the Bill in more detail. I refer first to Clause 1, which deals with unroadworthy vehicles. This clause does not seek to create any new offences but to provide for more effective enforcement of the adequate offence which already exists in Section 75(1) of the Road Traffic Act 1988. The offence has associated with it a statutory defence in Section 75(6) of that Act. That defence allows a dealer to escape conviction if he can satisfy a court that he had reasonable cause to believe that the vehicle would not be used on a road until it had been put into a lawful condition.
Given that the court need only be satisfied, on the balance of probabilities, that the dealer would have put the car into a roadworthy condition before it was driven away, enforcement authorities, who have to prove their case beyond any reasonable doubt, are understandably reluctant to pursue prosecutions knowing that the balance is so heavily weighted in favour of unscrupulous dealers. This matter was considered during consultation on the Government's White Paper The Road User and the Law in February 1989, when Ministers agreed with the Director General of Fair Trading that the offence is difficult to apply and that the statutory defence should be tightened up, while still making provision to permit genuine sales of unroadworthy vehicles.
There are, indeed, several examples of situations in which dealers might genuinely wish to sell vehicles in an unroadworthy condition; for example, sales between traders when the purchasing trader will take responsibility for carrying out repairs, or sales of cars to the public for use as spare parts, particularly in the building of so-called kit cars. This Bill does not seek to interfere with that legitimate element of the motor trade but to ensure that all car purchasers are clearly aware, before making up their minds, whether the vehicle falls into the unroadworthy category.
The Bill therefore proposes that the present defence should include two new provisions. The first would require the dealer, if he is to escape conviction, prominently to display a notice on an unroadworthy vehicle indicating that the vehicle was in an unroadworthy condition and that use on a road in its present condition would be unlawful. The second requires that, where an unroadworthy vehicle has been sold, similar warnings appear prominently on all documents associated with the sale.
There are, in fact, two difficulties associated with the effective use of the existing offence. I have dealt with one of them —the statutory defence. The other

1065
relates to those who are responsible for its enforcement. At present that responsibility lies with the police and vehicle examiners appointed by the Department of Transport. In terms of priorities and resources neither of those agencies has been able to make significant checks on cars before they are sold to the public.
Many local authorities have decided to use their general powers to bring prosecutions where examples of unroadworthy cars being sold come to the attention of their trading standards officers. However, those officers, who in the course of their duties under the Trade Descriptions Act already spend much of their time looking at cars on dealers' forecourts, have no power to check whether they are safe to use on the roads before they are sold. The situation only alters if a dealer makes a specific claim that the vehicle is, for example, in good condition. In that case the trading standards officer can check whether the description complies with the Trade Descriptions Act.
Where a vehicle is on a forecourt marked only with its price, as things stand at the moment a trading standards officer has no power to check if it is safe. This anomaly goes further when one considers the general duty and extensive powers which trading standards officers now have under the Consumer Protection Act 1987 to ensure the safety of all manner of consumer goods. Because it was thought that adequate safeguards existed elsewhere, motor vehicles were specifically exempted from that Act.
In April 1987 trading standards officers joined forces with Department of Transport vehicle examiners to establish the extent of the problem. Inspections were carried out in five areas of the country on 82 premises and 217 cars were examined. Of those cars 77 per cent. were found to be unroadworthy and 13 per cent. were in the dangerous category. That was the largest of a number of surveys, each producing a similar result. These are very startling figures.
Active forecourt inspections must be the key to greater protection both for car buyers and road users and they would provide fairer competition for traders. Therefore, the proposals in Clause 1(3) of the Bill suggest that in order to provide for the involvement of trading standards officers, a new class of enforcement person, the authorised officer, should be created alongside the authorised examiners currently recognised in Section 77 of the Road Traffic Act. Those officers would be appointed by the local weights and measures authorities, which is the term used in the Weights and Measures Act to denote the authorities responsible for trading standards functions. In addition to having the powers of a vehicle examiner, the officers would have the same powers that they currently exercise under the Trade Descriptions Act. Where necessary, they would be accompanied by expert assessors. These are the immediate changes that the Bill would bring about.
The Bill is also concerned with the offence of winding back vehicle mileage recorders and I wish to deal briefly with that subject now. It is covered
1066
in Clause 2 of the Bill as one of the several areas relating to the supply of motor vehicles, regarding which it is proposed that powers be given to the Secretary of State to make appropriate regulations. The regulations relating to mileage recording are in Clause 2(2)(a). A trader who clocks a car or who sells one which has been clocked already commits an offence under the Trade Descriptions Act. Trading standards officers take many hundreds of prosecutions each year for such offences while still unfortunately only touching at the tip of a huge iceberg. Surveys conducted by local authorities over the past 10 years have revealed that 20 per cent. of the cars monitored have had their mileage altered —20 per cent.!
A typical example of the gain to be made by the clocker is that of a popular saloon car four years old. At auction such a vehicle, with 65,000 miles on the clock, could be expected to fetch £2,500. If that car is sold by a trader at a retail outlet the cost would be about £3,100. With an odometer wound back to 25,000 miles instead of the 65,000 miles actually covered, the retail price would increase to £4,000. That would result in an illicit profit of £900. These are vast costs to the community when one considers the total cost to the consumers, to legitimate motor dealers and to enforcement bodies.
Plainly, the problem needs other solutions. The Office of Fair Trading Joint Committee to which I have referred came out strongly in favour of mileages being declared by vehicle owners each time they relicense the car. This information should be stored at the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Centre. While not being 100 per cent. foolproof, in most instances this suggestion would provide a full history of the vehicle for prospective purchasers and enforcement bodies. With such a high deterrent to would-be clockers, it was felt by all parties to be an effective solution to an age-old problem. Unfortunately, it did not find favour with the Government.
We are aware that some system of mileage recording and storage is still under consideration. For that reason, at this stage we seek only to provide the necessary enabling powers and a full consultation process. When an acceptable way forward is reached, a legislative framework will already be in place to enable speedy action to be taken by Ministers to protect the public from this very important fraud. I commend the Bill to the House.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a second time. —(Lord Ezra.)
1.45 p.m.
Lord Lucas of Chilworth: My Lords, I am quite sure that your Lordships will be grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, for introducing this Bill and for explaining to us how he sees its operation. Equally, I am quite sure that you will be grateful to him for highlighting three particular areas of great concern.
I have a great admiration for the noble Lord and for his work in a number of areas, not least as president of the Institute of Trading Standards Administration. But at this stage I part with the noble Lord on a number of concerns. He described to us the various bodies which formed the working

1067
group under the chairmanship of the Director General of Fair Trading. I believe that he will agree with me that, while all the members had sympathy with the cause, they did not agree with the outcome demonstrated by the introduction of this Bill.
It is my belief that both the Society of Motor Manufacturers and Traders and the Royal Automobile Club did not agree with the Bill. They certainly agreed with the causes and perhaps with some of the solutions. It is a pity that the working group under the chairmanship of the OFT should have brought forward a Bill at this stage which does not have the complete agreement of all the parties in that advisory group. Not to put too fine a point on the matter, I am suggesting the ITSA and the AA have rather jumped the gun.
I would have preferred a greater measure of agreement not only between those groups but also with the Government and a rather more pragmatic Bill produced, if a Bill was then thought necessary, which had the Government's total commitment and agreement. I have to go back a few years to when I was a junior at the Department of Transport and, to use the jargon, clocking was discussed. We failed to find a solution. I am not going to weary your Lordships with the technical details of clocking. We could not find a solution.
The Bill deals with a number of matters. Perhaps I may come first to the question of unroadworthy vehicles. There are two points to be made here. The first concerns the write-off when the insurance company decides to pay cash to a claimant in an accident purely and simply because the cost of repairs exceeds the value of that which remains within the policy. Subsequently, the salvage is sold by the insurance company. The insurers have a serious responsibility to ensure that those vehicles which are written off beyond economic repair are not sold as salvage to persons who, in the jargon, do the cut-and-shut job. If they are to be written off because they no longer have an economic value, they should be written off and destroyed, as should the documents. That is the responsibility of an insurance company, not of a salvage operator. I therefore depart immediately from the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Ezra.
Perhaps I may now deal with the question of those vehicles which are quite properly bought at or offered at auction. (To digress for a moment, I wonder whether the electricity supply to the clock might be restored in order to help me. If it cannot, so be it.) I refer also to the vehicle taken quite properly in part exchange which is not roadworthy but has a number of useful sales outlets. It seems wrong that that vehicle should be offered for sale either to a private individual or to a trader without the necessity of sticking labels on it or of documenting it. That seems to be a rather useless occupation. I therefore depart from the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, in that regard too.
I again depart from the noble Lord on his contention about the registration of mileage at various stages, whether on the anniversary of the test, the third anniversary of the Department of Transport test, or on exchange. There is no
1068
provision —the noble Lord may say that this is a Committee point —for the audit, if I may put it that way, if the owner of the vehicle wishes to relicense his motor car. We have 24 million of them. The noble Lord is quite right when he talks about 7.5 million used car transactions, the bulk of which are handled through the trade. We must therefore also deal with those transactions which are privately conducted, but the Bill does not deal with them. The application for renewal of a licence must be accompanied by a declaration of mileage. Unless that can be audited or confirmed, it is meaningless.
I shall not go into the long story of how to break the sequence of mileage which is illustrated in the Bill. It is easy to break with or without another set of regulations or documentation. A potential buyer of a second-hand vehicle may on the completion of a form and/or the payment of a fee obtain the recorded mileage from the DVLC which would add some authenticity, although that would be totally spurious. Once again, the noble Lord's argument does not stand. There is a practical difficulty. I understand that the DVLC handles some 40 or 50 million paper transactions each year. If 7·5 million transactions were carried out and there was additional documentation, we would have great problems.
I sympathise on the point concerning trading standards officers, but there is a training problem and the cost of training to be considered. There is already a great deal of pressure on our trading standards officers in respect of matters which are perhaps more important.
Finally, if the group has been brought together properly, as I believe it has been, I would suggest that it consider these three issues —unroadworthy vehicles, clocking and other authorised persons to make examinations —separately because they do not come together quite as neatly as the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, suggested. I also suggest that it produces proposals that may be accepted by everyone concerned —retailers, owners, motoring organisations, insurance companies and so on. The Government could then embrace those suggestions in regulations which could be entered into under the Trade Descriptions Act, consumer protection Acts and road traffic Acts, all of which are already in place. We would then have a consensus and an easier way of moving forward into an area that causes a great deal of concern.
Finally, in my long experience, I know that it is not difficult for a potential purchaser using facilities which are available, or his own integrity and energy, to find out more about a vehicle that is offered for sale. The Bill highlights areas of great concern but —I make no apology for the pun —it is quite the wrong vehicle for dealing with the matter.
1.58 p.m.
Baroness Fisher of Rednal: My Lords, I find myself following the noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth, and I cannot see any reasoning in his argument for not supporting the Bill. One would have thought that any Bill was worth while which protects the consumer —not only the person who buys the vehicle but all other road users. We know that unsafe

1069
vehicles can cause accidents on the road and may cause serious injury to others driving roadworthy vehicles. We must consider the two aspects together. I should like to compliment the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, on giving a comprehensive account of the Bill.
Perhaps I should declare my interest in the Bill. I have been interested in consumer affairs for more years than I care to remember. I started off in the co-operative movement alongside my noble friend Lord Graham of Edmonton who is on the Front Bench. I was also on the Consumer Affairs Committee of the European Parliament and I am at present a vice-president of the Institute of Trading Standards Administration.
We should consider the Bill seriously. As the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, said, it is simple in its application, easy to understand and the majority of people in the motor trade go along with it. The reputable dealer who sells second-hand cars has no fear of this Bill because he makes quite sure that he is not selling unsafe vehicles. The Bill deals with the rogue element in the industry; for example, the Arthur Daleys of the car trade.
As the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, said, in the main the cars we are concerned with are those at the cheaper end of the second-hand market; that is, the little cheap ones that the loving husband buys for the dear wife so that she can take the children to school. I refer to those at the cheaper end of the market. Although they look good and the seating and paintwork look good, the vehicles are completely unroadworthy. Therefore, we must protect some consumers who are perhaps not in a position to be able to take expert advice from the relevant organisations. As I said, let us ensure that we are only dealing with the rogue element of the trade. It is those people we wish to bring to book.
However, it is those people we are finding it increasingly difficult to tackle because of the inadequacies in the present legislation. As the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, pointed out, at present the only people who can visit car lots or places where second-hand cars are being sold in order to inspect them are the police or the department's own officers. I am sure that all of us in this House would agree that in the present situation the resources of the police could be better used in other ways than visiting car lots and inspecting such cars.
I suppose it is because the trading standards officers are known in the localities for dealing with consumer complaints of all kinds that such difficulties will be referred to them. If a person feels that he has been "done" —to use a colloquial expression —because he has been sold an unroadworthy vehicle, he will go to the trading standards office. Therefore, for that reason it makes the task of those who are asked to look after consumer interests much more difficult. They cannot go to the root cause; they cannot visit car lots and see matters for themselves.
Let us now consider trading standards and consumer legislation. We see that under such legislation, as the noble Lord pointed out, trading standards officers have the power to inspect the safety of all other consumer goods, except
1070
unroadworthy vehicles. That seems to me to be very strange. I see that the noble Lord wishes to intervene, and I have no objection.
Lord Lucas of Chilworth: My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble Baroness for her kindness. The trading standards officer has power, but this applies after the purchase takes place. I am sure that she would not disagree with that fact. However, the Bill introduces the involvement of trading standards officers at an earlier stage in the proceedings. Therefore, she is quite wrong to say that trading standards officers are unable to exercise authority in the matter of used motor cars. In fact, they can do so and they do.
Baroness Fisher of Rednal: My Lords, if the noble Lord had allowed me to continue with my speech he would have heard me say just that. I shall repeat what I said. Trading standards officers have the power to inspect the safety of all consumer goods. For example, they can visit shops, warehouses, supermarkets and street markets. They can notify the people concerned and say to them, "We are going to pick up these goods to test whether they are safe or dangerous". However, in their capacity as trading standards officers they cannot visit a car lot, prove who they are and say, "I am now going to inspect that vehicle". They simply cannot do so. It seems strange that a consumer protection Act does not allow them to do so.
I know very well that trading standards officers get around that problem; but they do so in a way which they ought not to. I can give your Lordships an example. I come from the city of Birmingham. It has an excellent trading standards department, as one would expect such a city to have. I should tell the noble Lord that just before Christmas, because of all the complaints that were coming into the office, the officers decided to carry out a survey of garage forecourts and auction lots. However, they could not do so as trading standards officers. So what did they do? They had to pose as private buyers so that they could purchase cars.
The survey was carried out in Birmingham at various places and 17 cars were bought by trading standards officers posing as members of the public. They did that because there was no other way it could be done. I should point out that all of those 17 vehicles were dangerously unroadworthy. It may also interest noble Lords to know that all those traders are now in the process of being prosecuted.
Perhaps the noble Lord will now agree with me that although trading standards officers find a way around the problem it is not an ideal solution and they should not have to do so. It would be preferable if they were able to visit such places, inspect a vehicle and say, "Look, mate — come on! —you know very well that that vehicle is unroadworthy and you know you ought not to be selling such a vehicle". Therefore, with that safeguard, if you are looking around and you cannot spot the Arthur Daley who is trying to sell you a car, you will be able to read for yourself that it is unroadworthy. We know that this is a safeguard which we can all accept. If we look at the way in which trading standards officers take care

1071
of the affairs of the consumer, it is an expensive way of dealing with the problem: going round, picking up cars, taking them away, having them inspected and then having to take out prosecutions. It is a very expensive and time-consuming way of doing things.
I do not know whether the Minister can say this when he comes to reply, but we would all accept that somebody ought to prevent unsafe vehicles being on the road. It is important that they should be taken off the road and we can only do that by not allowing them to be sold.
On expenditure, the Government constantly tell us that we must save money, be efficient and cost-effective. This would be a saving to a local authority. No local authorities think that there will have to be more examiners; they think that in the long run they will need fewer. If vendors know that a vehicle is unroadworthy they will not put it up for sale because they know very well that there will automatically be a prosecution. So there will be no extra expenditure and no extra manpower necessary for local authorities.
The noble Lord, Lord Ezra, described the second problem dealt with in the Bill with a different term from that used by the noble Lord, Lord Lucas. I shall call it "clocking", but the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, used the technical term. Clocking means that a considerable amount of time is wasted by trading standards officers. Overall, up and down the country many hours are spent every week dealing with this problem. Noble Lords may have missed me because I was not in the House yesterday —I hope that they did. Yesterday one of these "freebies", as we call them in the Birmingham area —free newspapers —came through my door. It was interesting. There was one column, "Here to help" which concerned a husband and wife who wanted to foster children. Another query concerned insurance, but there was one that particularly interested me in the copy of the paper for 7th February 1990.
The article states:
"Q. I have just bought a car and suspect that it's been 'clocked', even though I was assured by the vendor that the mileage was genuine. What should I look for to determine whether this is true and what can I do if it is?"
It is relevant to read the answer to noble Lords as it gives information on the problem. It mentions,
"excessive quiver of the speedo needle, damage to the screw heads holding the speedometer in place or hairbrush marks on or around the speedo figures".
That did not mean much to me but it was the advice given. The final sentence suggested that it would be helpful if the questioner consulted Birmingham City Council's environmental services department. So even that paper gave the information as to what should be done. I read the quotation because it was in the newspaper only yesterday.
In this House we have had various debates and Questions on clocking. The noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy, has raised the matter of clocking two or three times, as have other Members on both sides of the House. As the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, said, why do people turn the speedo back? It is just to make more profit. If a vendor did that when
1072
selling anything else he would be prosecuted for fraud. Why should people be allowed to get away with doing this? That is what it means —getting away with it.
Trading standards officers throughout the country realise the problem. In Birmingham the trading standards offices have a computerised vehicle mileage checking system in operation. It operates nationally with trading standards officers all over the country sending details of cars that come up for auction. Officers can try to trace owners back so that prosecutions can take place. That works fairly effectively but, as the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, said, it catches only a few culprits rather than many. Although that system works it does not go far enough.
The measure that the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, proposed as regards combating clocking seems such a simple one. When we dispose of our cars we have to rip off the bottom part of the vehicle registration form. I did so myself just before Christmas. When you dispose of your car, whoever you are selling it to, you have to tear off the bottom part of the form and return it to Swansea. You fill in the slip and inform the licensing centre at Swansea that you are disposing of your car. However, you do not have to say where the car will go to. If a garage buys your car it has to send the form back, as does any new owner of the car. Therefore the tear-off slip is returned to Swansea. I cannot imagine that it would be very difficult to send another form back at the same time stating how many miles were on the clock when the car was disposed of. The slip already has your name and address and the make of the car on it, so it would seem simple to add the number of miles registered on the clock.
One wonders why such a simple proposal cannot be implemented. As the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, said, we need a national register. Then we would know that the mileage was correct. I hope that the Government will seriously consider the proposal. I know that the Minister will probably say that it will cost money. But I point out that at the present time the licensing centre in Swansea is selling what are called cherished number-plates. I do not know how many thousands of pounds were raised at the last auction of such number plates. I suppose that that money must go to the Chancellor of the Exchequer. However, if this proposal would cost Swansea money, some of the money from the sale of the cherished number plates could be used to pay for it.
I hope that the Minister will give a satisfactory reply to the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, and the House this afternoon on what are two simple and practical measures. They would not only protect the consumer but also other road users as they concern safety. They would also stop people who are out to make a quick buck.
2.17 p.m.
Earl Attlee: My Lords, I feel I should start by damning the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, with faint praise. This Bill is rather like the curate's egg —good in parts.
I shall deal first with the comments of the noble Baroness, Lady Fisher. I would not trust a word of

1073
what her "freebie" states as regards how one tells whether a speedo has been clocked. The fact that the needle is quivering probably only means that there is a kink in the cable. I have had brand-new cars which show such quivers. As regards brush marks on the speedo figures, they have nothing to do with the clocking of miles.
Baroness Fisher of Rednal: My Lords, although I read from an article I had stressed that I was not an expert in this matter. However, I presume that the people who replied to the query in the article were experts. I personally would not recognise any marks or quivers.
Earl Attlee: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness. I claim to be something of an expert in this matter. I wished to put her right in that if she bought a car and saw the needle quivering, that would not necessarily mean that it had been clocked.
Several years ago I used to buy and sell second-hand and new cars. I worked for a group which to my certain knowledge was absolutely honest. I accept that there are rogues, but I ask your Lordships to accept that there are also rogues among the public. Some of the tricks they get up to are quite unbelievable. One asks them when they are trying to do a part exchange whether their car has ever been in a serious accident. They reply, "Oh no", as if butter would not melt in their mouths. However, they forget that they are dealing with experts and that if you stand in the right place you can see everything that has happened to the car.
They read in the "freebie" newspapers that if you have a high mileage car you change the brake pedal so that the rubber looks unworn. However, they do not realise that that has to be done well before the car is sold. Otherwise the salesman will see brand new brake pedals and think, "Hello, there's something wrong here". Another thing people do to older cars is to change the passenger seat, which has hardly been used, to the driver's side, and vice versa. Normally that is a dead giveaway.
The noble Baroness spoke about trading standards officers. Three of four years ago I went to my local trading standards officers in Finchley. As a result they brought the first successful prosecution against a motor trader who used to buy left-handed drive cars which had been exported to Europe, bring them back to this country and convert them. I had friends in Austin Rover. They offered to check out the car for me. They kept the car for two weeks, and the list of what was wrong with the car was pages long.
I asked the trading standards officers to prosecute. They said that that would be no good because Austin Rover would not support them. I replied that I had recently supported Austin Rover in the House of Lords and I thought that they would support me in this case. They did so. My car was extremely dangerous. Wrong parts had been fitted. Second-hand parts had been bent to fit. It was a death trap. The supplier received a summons and unfortunately for itself, found it was dealing with someone who was used to speaking in public. When it tried to browbeat me it did not work.
1074
I find it difficult to understand the MOT. Anyone who knows anything about cars will know the expression, "It has a very good MOT". That means that it has been through the MOT and been thoroughly tested. The obverse of that is that a car has a dodgy MOT. Some 18 months ago I bought at auction a Ford Fiesta for my daughter. I saw that five days previously it had had an MOT and since then it had done 38 miles. When driving the car home I realised that something was wrong. My son, among other things, is an automobile heavy recovery expert and mechanic. He found that the front brakes had seized. That car could not genuinely have passed the MOT. I had been fooled, believing that the car must be all right because it had previously been a Panda car with the local police.
In the old days a car had a registration book which gave the name of the registered owner Now it gives the name of the registered keeper. I sold a van a few weeks ago. The buyer was hard up so I said that he could pay me in a couple of months. He applied to the DVLC to be registered as the keeper of the vehicle. The DVLC contacted me. I said that he had not paid. The DVLC asked whether he had the car. I said that he had. Apparently he was therefore registered as the keeper. He does not own the car because he has not paid me for it; I own the car. I have never been able to understand why that change was made.
Several noble Lords have quoted statistics. I too shall quote statistics. Unfortunately I have to read them out, and when I intend to say 28 per cent. I may say 82 per cent., or vice versa, because I am dyslexic. I hope that the House will bear with me.
We have already been told that there are 7·5 million used cars sold per annum. Incidentally, it is rather funny that we should call them second-hand cars since some have probably changed hands eight or nine times. Half of those used cars (3·75 million) are sold through the motor trade; of those cars, 75 per cent. (2·81 million) are sold in an unroadworthy condition. That means that the buyers of those vehicles could drive off and suddenly find that they have no brakes or no steering. There could be a serious loss of life. Even of those vehicles which the general public hire, a recent check in mid-Glamorgan showed that 13 out of 16 hired vehicles were found to be unroadworthy.
I turn to insurance write-offs, a subject which I know has already been mentioned. In 1985 an AA survey found that one in eight vehicles (17,500) were unsafe; 50 per cent. (70,000) still had defects. Any vehicle on the road that has a defect or is unsafe might kill the driver. Worse than that, the driver might kill you, me, your daughter, son or grandchildren. That is why this is a part of the Bill that I strongly commend.
In an RAC survey it was found that 3 per cent. of all cars examined had post-accident repairs and that 20 per cent. of those repairs had been done badly. It is terrible that on our roads today there are so many cars which are unsafe. That is certainly something which the MOT was intended to check. When I lived in Belgium there was an annual government check of cars. The government could

1075
not care less whether or not the vehicles passed as fit. It meant nothing in their pocket. It was nothing to them if a car needed two new tyres, because they did not supply tyres. It was a very good system and I wish that we had such a system in this country.
Reference has also been made to clocking —a £100 million a year fraud. One in five used cars (1·5 million) is likely to have its recorded mileage doctored. I once worked for a company (whose name I shall not mention) whose employees used company cars and were given a standard amount of money each month. If one travelled more than a certain number of miles one received more money. I experimented. I bought a new speedometer and ruined it. I learned how to clock. But I clocked the opposite way round. I took out the clock and turned on the mileage, so that certain people could claim extra money. It was quite illegal but I did not think of it in that light in those days.
As I believe was said by the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, every 1,000 miles off the recorded mileage adds about £30 to the resale value of a vehicle. That means that some cars increase in value by about £1,000 when 33,000 miles have been taken off the clock.
I am sure that in an insurance write-off the registration document should be handed to the driver who should then send it to DVLC for it to be stamped with a record of that insurance write-off. If someone were to buy that vehicle and repair it, that vehicle could not then be taxed until it had been through a stringent test. For ever after the registration document would carry the fact in a stamp indicating that that vehicle was an insurance write-off. I am sure that that would be a great help.
I believe that one of the worst features of our system is that the registration document shows the name of the registered keeper. One may be a representative for a big company and travel over 100,000 miles a year in one's car. One may run it for one year and then sell it. The ordinary "Poor Joe" member of the public looks to see who is the registered keeper of the car. If he has been clocking, the car might be in excellent condition but the public are being "done" left, right and centre.
I wish that Lord Ezra's Bill was stronger and more detailed. It would be nice to think that the Government will dot the "i"s and cross the "t"s. However, judging by past performance, I have a nasty feeling that they will not do so.
2.30 p.m.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, the House will be grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, for introducing the Bill and speaking to it. I shall try to be brief in my comments. I must make it clear that although I speak from the Dispatch Box, I am not representing the Labour Party's position on the Bill because it is a Private Member's Bill. I am therefore speaking in my personal capacity.
The noble Lord's Bill seeks to address the issues of enforcement of the law relating to unroadworthy vehicles and what is known as clocking. As he rightly
1076
pointed out, the sale of unroadworthy vehicles is a criminal offence under Section 75 of the Road Traffic Act 1988 and clocking is a criminal offence under the Trade Descriptions Act. We therefore have quite clearly established in law that there are two offences.
As the noble Lord pointed out, the problem is that in the first instance there is a defence under Section 75(6)(b) of the Road Traffic Act 1988 which is a little too wide. The noble Lord seeks to narrow that defence. I shall come back to that point in a moment.
The second problem that he seeks to address is one of enforcement. I agree wholeheartedly with the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, and the noble Baroness, Lady Fisher, on that. I personally prefer the formula of the noble Baroness, Lady Fisher, that the general safety requirement under the Consumer Protection Act should apply to motor vehicles. When we discussed the Bill in your Lordships' House, I could never see why motor vehicles were exempted from that. There should be some arrangement for proper inspection of vehicles on a forecourt or a lot.
It is clear to me that the right people to do that are the trading standards officers. The only point I make about that is the one that I made to the Government when the Consumer Protection Act was a Bill before your Lordships' House: it is no good imposing burdens on trading standards officers without giving them the resources to carry on the tasks imposed. Government after government have imposed tasks on those very hard working, conscientious people without giving them the resources that they need to carry them out. Therefore, I would say that Clause 5 of the Bill dealing with financial provisions could perhaps be amended accordingly. If there is to be serious enforcement of these two matters then the officers in question need to be properly equipped; there needs to be sufficient number of them; and they need to be properly trained.
The problem that I had with the narrowing of what I call the subsection (6)(b) defence in the Bill is that it would impose an onus on the proposed vendor of the vehicle to decide for himself whether or not a vehicle was roadworthy. The Road Traffic Act is quite specific on this matter. It defines the offence. It is quite clear that the question of whether an offence has been committed is a matter for the courts, after prosecution. It is very difficult to say to a dealer, "Will you please put up a notice on the windscreen of a car saying, 'This is unroadworthy' ". It is for the courts to decide ultimately what is unroadworthy and what is not. If a day later, after replacing the missing wheel, he says, "I am now going to take this off and declare it roadworthy", he is again making a judgment about the interpretation of the law. That raises many problems for the dealer and one must consider them most carefully.
I turn now to the subject of clocking. As was pointed out by my noble friend Lady Fisher, in discussions in this House many possible solutions have been put forward. However, none has commanded the universal support of all the organisations and the Government. It is an extremely difficult problem to solve. How does one

1077
enforce the offence under the Trade Descriptions Act? Apart from allowing trading standards officers greater liberty in enforcing whatever system is adopted, I understand that all the noble Lord's Bill does is to allow the Secretary of State to make regulations describing a system. We do not know what system the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, or anyone else has in mind.
In debates in this House all systems that have been put forward have been found to be defective in some way. Therefore, I do not believe that the clocking side of the Bill takes us much further. I should like to see much more thought given to the matter before primary legislation is produced. With that, we must have an idea of the kind of regulation and system for which the Government are able to command respect.
I have certain reservations about the Bill, but nothing that I have said detracts from my enthusiasm or that of my party for ensuring that the offences are prosecuted. As my noble friend Lady Fisher said, there is no doubt that the problem of unroadworthy vehicles on the road is a social menace. There is also no doubt that clocking constitutes fraud. Wherever there is a social menace and fraud, the offences must be prosecuted and brought to book. However, I wonder whether the Bill brought forward by the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, is the vehicle for that process. Nevertheless, we support its aims. We hope that the Government will take the Bill, build on it and bring back an improvement which meets the aims of which we all approve.
2.38 p.m.
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, I have listened to the debate with great interest. I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Williams, for setting out his remarks, which were brief, as he said. I fear that my remarks will take a little longer because I wish to address the issues.
The noble Lord, Lord Ezra, has chosen a subject for the Bill on which a number of noble Lords have experience. After a house, the purchase of a motor car is probably the biggest single expenditure which an individual or family undertakes. But what a contrast there is between the two transactions. Who would contemplate buying a second-hand house which was outside its warranty period without having at least a basic survey carried out by an independent expert? It would be folly to do so. However, when it comes to buying a motor car people appear to be prepared to commit themselves to an item costing thousands of pounds on the basis of little more than a quick look.
I find that most difficult to understand. In addition to the motoring organisations, there are independent motor consultants throughout the country who offer a pre-purchase inspection service. Yet they are comparatively little used by consumers who seem loath to spend £50 or so, even though it could save them hundreds and sometimes thousands of pounds in the long run.
Noble Lords may point out that of course the difference between buying a house and buying a car is that the mortgage loan is normally contingent
1078
upon the house having a survey, whereas that is not the case with a car which is being financed by a loan. That is true, but even so I cannot understand why people seem to throw caution to the wind when they set out to buy a used car.
There is no shortage of advisory information on the subject. For example, the Office of Fair Trading has published an excellent leaflet on used cars giving advice on what to look out for, what questions to ask, what to ask to see, what do if things go wrong and so on. The leaflet also deals with car repairs and servicing and is available free of charge at citizens' advice bureaux and trading standards offices throughout the country. The Consumers' Association, in its Which? magazine, frequently publishes advice on buying used cars, and articles often appear in the national and local press. Surely there can be few people who do not realise that there are risks involved in buying used cars. There will always be risks whatever legislation one has but the consumer can keep those risks to a minimum by taking some elementary precautions and by going to a reputable dealer.
The noble Lord, Lord Ezra, quoted some remarkable figures which invite us to accept that those risks are great. We have been told by the noble Lord of the results of a 1987 survey which estimates that three out of every four cars sold are in an unroadworthy condition. I query that figure which I suspect has been derived from the results of a single survey carried out on 200 vehicles in only four areas of the country in 1987. I am doubtful about the validity of using such limited evidence to draw a conclusion in respect of a population of 7·5 million cars.
I should like to examine the considerable amount of regulation which is already on the statute book and which provides protection for buyers of used cars and users of garage services. First, there are various criminal statutes. The Trade Descriptions Act 1968 is the most notable of these, requiring that any trade description which is applied to a car, such as "excellent condition", "one lady owner", or even "good runner" must be truthful. Noble Lords will also doubtless be aware that it is the Trade Descriptions Act which makes it a criminal offence to wind back the odometer of a car —I believe it is known as "clocking" in the trade —to make it appear to have travelled less miles than it really has.
The noble Earl, Lord Attlee, has experience of another form of activity which was useful to the debate but I shall not take that any further. Trading standards officers of local authorities took 379 successful prosecutions last year for offences involving false mileage readings on used cars and every dealer knows that he risks a heavy fine, or even imprisonment, if he tampers with a car odometer.
The Trade Descriptions Act also applies to garage services. If a dealer misdescribes servicing or repair work which he has carried out, he is again likely to fall foul of the Act and be liable to prosecution by the trading standards authorities. Another problem sometimes encountered by car buyers is also dealt with by criminal legislation. It is the practice of some disreputable dealers to advertise used cars as if the

1079
sales were private ones, thus depriving the buyer of some of his or her rights in civil law. This practice is the subject of the Business Advertisements (Disclosure) Order 1977 which requires the advertisement to make it clear that the goods are being offered by a dealer.
Of course, the consumer has a number of rights under the civil law, and it is appropriate to mention the Sale of Goods Act 1979, the Supply of Goods and Services Act 1982 and the Unfair Contract Terms Act 1977, all of which provide protection to purchasers of motor cars and garage services. Furthermore, where a car is purchased, as many are these days, by means of credit, the Consumer Credit Act 1974 may also provide additional protection for the consumer. For example, in certain circumstances the finance company shares legal liability with the supplier for defects in the goods supplied.
Under the provisions of the Road Traffic Act 1988 it is an offence for a person to sell, or to offer for sale, a motor vehicle or trailer which is in an unroadworthy condition. However, a person cannot be convicted of that offence if, among other things, he can prove that the vehicle or trailer would be put into a lawful condition before being used on the road.
I hope that your Lordships will agree that the protection which the law provides to those who purchase cars or have their cars serviced or repaired is already extensive.
Let me turn now to the Bill which is before your Lordships. Clause 1 would modify certain requirements of the Road Traffic Act 1988. In the case of unroadworthy vehicles that I have just mentioned, Clause 1 of the Bill would require the seller, to avoid conviction, to display a notice on the vehicle or trailer to indicate unroadworthiness, and to state this fact in sales documents. The Government have already agreed, in response to representations made by the working party under the chairmanship of the Director General of Fair Trading, that there is a case for tightening up the current defence. We intend to put proposals before Parliament in the autumn to limit the application of the defence to cases where the seller can prove that he has exercised all due diligence to avoid committing an offence. The noble Lord, Lord Williams, drew attention to that. However, arrangements will need to be made to exempt genuine sales of unroadworthy vehicles, such as sales between traders, as the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, said.
The other main effect of Clause 1 would be to give trading standards officers the power to test and inspect used motor vehicles and trailers to determine whether or not they are unroadworthy. Under the Road Traffic Act 1988 these powers are already available to, and exercised by, authorised examiners as defined in the Act. These include vehicle examiners from the Vehicle Inspectorate Executive Agency, which is responsible to the Secretary of State for Transport. These people are experts in assessing vehicle roadworthiness, whereas the trading standards officers are generally not qualified in that respect.
1080
In practice, vehicle examiners work closely with trading standards officers and their services are available on request to follow up suspected breaches of the relevant sections of the Act. Under current working arrangements vehicle examiners can also undertake routine dealer forecourt inspections on their own initiative. The noble Baroness, Lady Fisher of Rednal, did not mention that in regard to inspections of forecourts, so I draw her attention to that fact.
The Government consider that these arrangements for safeguarding against the sale of unroadworthy vehicles work well, though they are currently reviewing the means whereby additional vehicle examiner time could be made available to trading standards officers if required. If does seem, therefore, that these additional powers are unnecessary. Furthermore, extending these powers to trading standards officers would mean that they would not be so easily, expertly and consistently applied as they are at present.
Turning to Clause 2, your Lordships will recall that I have outlined the main aspects of the criminal law which apply already to the sale of motor cars and the provision of garage services. The noble Lord, Lord Ezra, indicated that there are some deficiencies in the existing law and that his Bill seeks to put them right. However, Clause 2 does not make any specific proposals for what should be done, as the noble Lord, Lord Williams, pointed out. The Bill would confer on the Secretary of State the most sweeping powers to make regulations to govern the motor trade. These enabling powers are so widely drawn that they could be used for almost any purpose from introducing a licensing system for the motor trade right down to regulating the width of the stripes on a car salesman's suit.
From what the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, said, however, I understand that one of the main objectives of Clause 2 of his Bill is to combat fraudulent alteration of car odometers —clocking. I understand that one proposal that the noble Lord has in mind is a national mileage recording scheme. That proposal has been made to government before. The suggestion is that it should be compulsory for every motorist to report the mileage reading on his or her car every time the car is taxed or sold; a point brought out by the noble Baroness, Lady Fisher. The details would then be passed on to the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Centre, which would transfer them to its computer records. These records would be made available to the trading standards officer investigating the previous history of motor cars sold or offered for sale to consumers.
Noble Lords might consider that this would be a very useful system which would make life much more difficult for the fraudsters. I have to tell noble Lords that the idea is fatally flawed. The DVLC has estimated that it would entail the recording of an extra 40 million pieces of data a year. That of itself would be a very expensive bureaucratic exercise. However, it could be financed if a suitable fee were charged for inquiries and if there was sufficient demand. But there is the rub. There would be no way of checking the accuracy of the information being recorded on the DVLC computer.

1081
My noble friend Lord Lucas of Chilworth drew attention to that fact. I believe the phrase he used was that there would be "no audit of it". The noble Baroness, Lady Fisher, said that it would be easy to put the figures on the bottom piece of the vehicle documentation when it was returned. She did not tell us why false details could not be put on the transfer form.
I am sure that those who were intent on fraud would find ways of submitting false details. These, together with genuine errors, would assume a spurious authenticity. I believe that those were the words used by my noble friend Lord Lucas. Eventually the unreliability of the information would cause the system to fall into disrepute and the DVLC would be left with an expensive white elephant to maintain.
Baroness Fisher of Rednal: My Lords, the Minister gave the number of pieces of information that would be added to the records. However, the DVLC is automatically writing off cars every year as these take place. That must also be a costly exercise. In addition, there is the information which goes through to the computer of police records and which has constantly to be amended. I speak as a magistrate and I am referring to motoring offences. Those records are constantly being amended and I do not know how many thousands of them must be on record at the DVLC. There is no suggestion —is there?—of the Government ever saying "We have too many people with motoring offences and we are not going to record them any more".
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, I was seeking to stress that there would be 40 million additional pieces of data to record per annum and there is a cost involved in that. The Government deplore the practice of car clocking, but they do not accept that the answer is to require the declaration and the recording to millions upon millions of additional items of information every year. When the working party under the chairmanship of the Director General of the Office of Fair Trading first came up with this proposal in 1987, the then Minister for Roads and Traffic explained these difficulties and invited the working party to look at a more cost-effective scheme.
He suggested that the scheme should be targeted on the vehicles most prone to clocking; that is, the ex-fleet cars which cover high mileages in a short time. He also suggested involving private companies which are already in the business of tracing and recording vehicle histories. The working party seems to have ignored these suggestions, however, and it is still asking the Government to set up a system which would involve a very large investment for a very doubtful return.
Surely, the permanent answer must be to make cars in such a way that it is physically much more difficult to alter the odometer reading. Motor manufacturers have an interest in maintaining a healthy market for used cars. I believe that they could do more than they are doing at the moment to find a technical solution to this problem. For example, I have heard that Rolls-Royce has started
1082
installing in its cars a secret computer chip which records the distance travelled independently of the odometer. I do not say that that is the answer, but it shows that there is room for development in this area.
Regarding other measures which the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, may have in mind for the wide regulation-making powers of Clause 2, I do not know what these might be. However, I would argue that we already have on the statute book a wide range of legislation which protects the purchasers of motor vehicles and of other goods and services. The fact that trading standards officers took over 400 successful prosecutions last year for offences relating to the sale of motor cars suggests that the law is far from unenforceable. I am sure that every dealer knows the risk he runs if he contravenes the Trade Descriptions Act or the other consumer protection laws.
The Government are always prepared to consider specific solutions to specific problems, but we do not consider that it is necessary or desirable to have such sweeping and imprecise powers on the statute book. I am afraid, therefore, that I cannot commend this Bill to your Lordships' House.
2.55 p.m.
Lord Ezra: My Lords, I should like to thank all noble Lords who have participated in the debate. I believe that I can conclude that, although not necessarily in support of the Bill or of particular clauses in it, all nonetheless accept that there are problems and that we should do something about them. To that extent, we have had a useful debate. I should like to consider briefly some of the points raised by noble Lords, comment on them and then conclude.
The noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth, with whom on many occasions I find myself in full agreement, did not find himself in support of the Bill. When he started speaking, I thought that he would tell us that there was no problem, but he ended by saying that these are areas of great concern. Those were his words, so he clearly thinks that there are problems but that the Bill does not address them.
The noble Lord queried the fact that all the organisations mentioned by the working party of the Director General of Fair Trading did not necessarily support the Bill. To my knowlege, they all do. The points raised in the Bill are the three points raised in Sir Gordon Borrie's original letter. I am not aware that any of the signatories to that letter said that they did not support the Bill, but I shall certainly look into the matter as the noble Lord referred to it.
The noble Lord said that he was very much against the documenting of unroadworthy vehicles or of showing that they were unroadworthy. However, unless that is done, how are people who go along to a forecourt and see masses of cars drawn up with all the prices clearly shown to know which are roadworthy and which are not? We have agreed that there are legitimate sales of unroadworthy vehicles for particular purposes and that they can be properly but clearly shown on the forecourt in the same way as goods which are damaged in any other respect. I

1083
believe that they are known in the trade as seconds. They must be properly advertised as such, so unroadworthy vehicles should be designated in some way.
It was suggested that it is perhaps difficult for traders to determine whether a vehicle is unroadworthy. I cannot see how else to do so. That is their expertise. To try to adjudge that after the sale and when the matter has been to the courts and when perhaps serious damage and harm have been done seems to be leaving it a little late. The point about not showing that cars are unroadworthy when they are on the forecourt is debatable.
All noble Lords raised the question of odometers and clocking. As everyone agreed, it is a serious problem. However, there is disagreement as to the solutions. That was why Clause 2 was widely drawn and left matters to the Secretary of State. I should like to ask the noble Viscount—perhaps he will write to me about the matter—whether I was right in supposing, as I mentioned in my opening remarks, that the Government are considering possible alternative ways of dealing with the matter or whether they are leaving it entirely to third parties to consider. Is there any initiative in that field or is it to be left to others to bring something forward? I should like to be assured on that point. I am not clear whether the Government have merely said that they do not like the solution brought forward but are leaving it to others to find something better, or whether they are to have some input.
I am most indebted to the noble Baroness, Lady Fisher of Rednal, for her strong support for the Bill and for the vigorous way in which she demonstrated that there are real problems for ordinary people with these two difficulties —unroadworthy used cars and clocking. She was quite right to demonstrate that clocking is regarded as a big problem by ordinary people when purchasing used cars. They do not have much idea of how to check on such matters. The noble Earl, Lord Attlee, pointed out that even if they took the advice in the journal to which the noble Baroness referred, they would still get no further. All that makes it clear that this is a most difficult area. Therefore, perhaps some keen minds will try to look into the matter.
The noble Earl gave us a great deal of information about many aspects. I hope that we shall only treat them as matters brought forward in a debate and not go off, enter the trade to which he belonged and practise some of them. However, some of the statistics that he produced were very scaring. For example, in the case of unroadworthy cars he demonstrated that of the 7·5 million used car transactions per annum, 3·75 million cars were sold by the trade of which 2·81 million were shown to be unroadworthy. Those were the figures he quoted and he is an expert in his field. I think that that is a terrible indication of what is happening. He also mentioned the risks associated with car hire vehicles, saying that many were unroadworthy. Therefore, there is not the slightest doubt that we have a real problem in this respect. He fully supported clauses in the Bill which deal with unroadworthiness.
1084
However, he did not think that the clocking provisions went far enough.
The noble Lord, Lord Williams, made clear that he supported the broad intention of the Bill and that he recognised the fact that the real problem is not that these two aspects —namely, unroadworthiness and clocking —are offences (and they are offences) but how we deal with them. The question arises as regards the available defences which prevent proper prosecutions taking place. He felt that the TSOs had a role to play in gaining access to the forecourts and participating in inspections of such vehicles before they are sold. He emphasised that the officers would have to have the necessary resources to do so. I certainly agree with that conclusion. He too mentioned the matter of clocking. He was among the speakers who noted that this still remains a difficult issue.
In summing up the Government's point of view, the noble Viscount emphasised the importance of car purchases in the lives of ordinary people. He said that in regard to the purchase of a used car the purchaser should exercise the same care as he would when purchasing a house. He also pointed out that there are ways in which people can obtain advice at a relatively low cost. In fact, he drew our attention to the excellent OFT document on used cars. I believe that those words are most important and that such advice should be widely spread.
However, when the noble Viscount came to discuss the Bill he was not quite as positive as he had been in his opening remarks. In regard to Clause 1, he agreed that there was a case for tightening up the defence provisions as regards unroadworthy vehicles. He told us that the Government would be bringing forward proposals in the matter. That is a positive point. He did not agree that TSOs should be able to carry out examinations on forecourts, on the grounds that there are vehicle examiners who are experts in that field who are already doing this work. But he did say that the Government are looking closely at the possibility of extending and increasing the number of vehicle examiners, who, of course, work very closely with TSOs.
I am not entirely convinced about the noble Viscount's exclusion of TSOs. I do not see why they should not have the right to go and visit forecourts—if need be, with the vehicle examiners—because they have a clear role to play in the matter. I should have thought that it would strengthen their hand if they had such a right. I hope that we can come back to that later.
Finally, the noble Viscount criticised the wide-ranging powers that the Secretary of State may be given by Clause 2. I should be happy to look at that again at a later stage. However, in the case of the clocking problem, which was the main issue in mind under this clause,gave the reasons the Government had turned down the original proposals put forward by Sir Gordon Borrie after the deliberations of the working party. He said that asking the DVLC to keep this vast amount of information might not be helpful. The noble Viscount suggested various alternatives but I come back to the point that I put to him earlier. I hope

1085
that the Government themselves will look at the problem and come forward with proposals, just as I am convinced that other parties concerned will examine the matter. I commend the Bill to the House.
On Question, Bill read a second time, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.
House adjourned at six minutes past three o'clock.

  COMMUNITY CHARGE
  COMMUNITY CHARGE
  LEAD IN PAINT: HISTORIC BUILDINGS USE
  LEAD IN PAINT: HISTORIC BUILDINGS USE
  CHILDREN ACT AND COMMUNITY CARE: RSG FUNDING
  CHILDREN ACT AND COMMUNITY CARE: RSG FUNDING
  COMMUNITY CHARGE
  COMMUNITY CHARGE