Lords Sitting of 17 December 1984

Preamble
The House met at half-past two of the clock: The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of Bristol.

Trident: Cost
Lord Bruce-Gardyne: My Lords I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government what is their latest estimate of the current sterling cost of acquiring the Trident missile system.
Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Armed Forces (Lord Trefgarne): My Lords, the Trident estimate is currently being reviewed as part of the annual recosting of the defence programme. My right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Defence hopes to be able to announce a revised estimate early in the New Year.
Lord Bruce-Gardyne: My Lords, I am most grateful to my noble friend for that reply. Would he not agree that it is already apparent that that estimate is likely to be at least double the original cost? Is it not by now apparent that the original assurance that it would have no impact in squeezing the other programmes in the defence budget which we were given when this expensive purchase was embarked on, is no longer sustainable? Is it not therefore desirable that we should review this purchase at the earliest possible date?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, no. I am afraid that I disagree with my noble friend on all three counts.
Lord Grimond: My Lords, may I ask the Minister whether he would not agree that the constantly escalating costs of this weapon will distort the whole defence budget? Would he agree—I am sure he would—that there is no doubt that the cost estimates are going to be about double what they were originally, and that this is bound to mean cuts in conventional arms and other much more essential parts of our defence programme?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, no, I am afraid that the noble Lord is not correct. The total cost of this project is still estimated to be around 3 per cent. of the defence budget as a whole over the period of its acquisition. This amounts to about 6 per cent. of the procurement budget during the same time. Of course this is a comparatively small proportion of our total defence expenditure.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, does not the comparatively small proportion of the cost out of the total defence budget contribute, on the other hand, a major factor for maintaining the peace of the world?
Lord Trefgarne: Indeed it does, my Lords. If we were not to embark upon this programme we would, some time early in the 1990s, be out of the independent nuclear deterrent business altogether.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, is the noble Minister not being rather shy about this matter? We have heard and seen estimates of the costs at a figure of about £10,000 million. The running costs of the system have to be added to that figure. Surely that must detract from the conventional defence budget. Would it not be much more sensible for this country to concentrate its defence effort on the Navy and the Royal Air Force? Perhaps the noble Minister would comment on newspaper reports this morning that, due to lack of funds, the Air Force is going to cut down on pilot training.
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, the equivalent in conventional terms of the cost of the Trident programme is four or five mechanised divisions. Having regard to the fact that the Soviets already have a preponderance of I think 60 or 70 mechanised divisions on the central front, that is not likely to make much difference.
Lord Kennet: My Lords, would the noble Lord not agree that all defence procurement programmes have cost overruns, and that those which are at the frontiers of technology at any given time always have very large cost overruns, often amounting to double and sometimes more? Would he not agree that it is about time this Government, like their predecessors, devised a system of costings which would eliminate those unexpected overruns? Above all, would he now begin to pay attention to the continuous warnings which have been uttered from these Benches over the past three years that the original costings given for Trident were totally unrealistic?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, may I invite noble Lords to await the publication of the new estimate of costs early next year? I do not think it will be anything like some of the absurd figures that I have seen in the press recently. In any event, as I was saying in answer to my noble friend, it does represent very good value for money for deterrent purposes.
Viscount Trenchard: My Lords, would my noble friend agree that previous Ministers at the Ministry of Defence made a major mistake in quoting as one figure an amount for a 15 or 18 year programme to keep our independent nuclear deterrent up to date? Even then it is substantially less than the cost of the Tornado. Would my noble friend further agree that our record in building submarines—half the cost of the project—has been good: they have come through at estimate on all recent occasions. Would he further agree that the U.S. cost of building missiles of this nature has also in the past come through at estimate? Would he further confirm—
Noble Lords: No!
Viscount Trenchard: Would he further confirm that the agreement has fixed, as a fixed sum in dollars, the R and D expenditure? Would he finally confirm—
Noble Lords: No!
Viscount Trenchard: Would he finally confirm that the French spend some four times what we do on maintaining an independent nuclear deterrent?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, I am afraid that I lost track of some of those supplementaries. But my noble friend does underline some of the important advantages of this programme, speaking as he does from an important position of experience in these matters.
Lord Beswick: My Lords, does not the noble Lord agree that a country that spends this amount of money on an independent nuclear deterrent that can never be used independently but that has nevertheless to cut down proper flying practice for its service pilots does not cut a very good figure in international affairs?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, the noble Lord starts from a mistaken premise. This is an independent nuclear deterrent and can indeed, if circumstances so demand, be used independently.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, while the noble Lord has always been generous about providing detailed information on the astronomical costs of the mighty weight of nuclear weapons that we are endeavouring to harbour unto ourselves, does he not agree that it is disturbing that, at the conclusion of his remarks, after giving all this information about what is being spent, he says the the reason for it is that the Russians have a 60 to 1 preponderance over us? Will he therefore inform the House what the Government think will encourage the Russians to start a war so that we shall not catch up with them before the position is 30 to 1 or 40 to 1 in the USSR's favour?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, the answer to the noble Lord is that the purpose of our independent deterrent and, indeed, of the deterrent posture of the alliance as a whole is to enable us to ensure that if, and only if, the Soviets or any other potential adversary should seek to attack us, we are in a position to respond in a way that they would find unacceptable.
Lord Carver: My Lords, would the noble Lord not agree that there is a general consensus within NATO now that the first priority for NATO is to improve its conventional capability? Would he not therefore agree that, rather than spend 3 per cent. on this superfluous weapons system, he should maintain the 3 per cent. increase in real terms which the Government, I understand, propose to cease to spend from 1986?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, I certainly agree that we should do what we can to improve our conventional forces' posture but not at the expense of our nuclear forces.
Lord Bruce-Gardyne: My Lords, having listened carefully to my noble friend's replies, would he not agree that in two respects at least the equations have changed since the sums were originally announced? First, as the noble Lord, Lord Carver, has pointed out, is it not a fact that we have abandoned, in my view
430
quite rightly, the open-ended commitment to a 3 per cent. real increase in defence expenditure since these commitments were entered into? Secondly, is it not apparent that the offset in terms of manufacturing to be done and orders to be won in this country has been substantially reduced as a proportion of the total Trident expenditure?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, in answer to the last part of my noble friend's question, no, I am afraid that the correct position is not as my noble friend describes it. The "offset", as my noble friend refers to it, will be, and was always intended to be, the result of a competitive process. It is up to British firms to compete effectively with their American competitors. But it is, of course, necessary that they should be given the chance to do that. And that is what we have arranged.

Capital Transfer Tax
2.46 p.m.
Lord Beswick: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they are satisfied that current legislation prevents undue avoidance of capital transfer tax.
The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster and Minister for the Arts (The Earl of Gowrie): My Lords, the capital transfer tax legislation already contains numerous anti-avoidance provisions. The Government keep the effectiveness of these provisions—and the need for any further legislative safeguards—under regular review.
Lord Beswick: My Lords, I am obliged to the noble Earl for that Answer. Has he, or the Government, a view about the expensive salesmanship of the City gentlemen who say that they can reduce or even eliminate the necessity for paying tax? Is he aware that one City company, for example, says:
"The capital transfer tax is a voluntary tax".
In these circumstances, should not the law be strengthened or some of these people charged with misleading advertising?
The Earl of Gowrie: My Lords, I am not wholly clear what kind of schemes the noble Lord has in mind. It is, of course, impossible to block all forms of avoidance. A balance must be struck between stopping undue avoidance on the one hand and making our tax system oppressively complex and full of traps for the unwary on the other.
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: My Lords, rather than proceeding with immense complication, often belatedly and frequently ineffectively, against particular schemes for avoidance of tax, can consideration again be given to the American and Australian system of providing simply that any transaction whose paramount object is the avoidance of tax shall be void for that purpose though valid for all others? Would that not greatly simplify our fiscal code?
The Earl of Gowrie: My Lords, I shall of course give consideration to what the noble and learned Lord has said, but I would claim that the tax is still cost effective. The estimated yield from CTT for 1984–85 is £680 million, and the cost/yield ratio of 3.2 per cent. compares rather favourably with that for other capital taxes.
Lord Kennet: My Lords, the noble Earl has spoken of preventing undue avoidance and has thereby introduced into debate the interesting concept of due avoidance. Would he be so kind as to describe that, or define it?
The Earl of Gowrie: My Lords, yes, I think there has to be a balance between what is regarded as avoidance and what is regarded as prudent tax planning, which has always been wholly legitimate.
Lord Morris: My Lords, is it not true that a learned judge, many years ago, rightly distinguished between the duty to avoid tax, that is, the duty to one's family and one's interests, and the fact that tax evasion is a crime?
The Earl of Gowrie: My Lords, one should, I believe, pay one's taxes but one should not pay more in taxes than one can reasonably avoid.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, the noble Earl has passed some observations about the cost effectiveness of this particular tax. Will the noble Earl inform the House as to whether he considers the total yield from this tax to be one that is satisfactory, bearing in mind that the yield is but a fraction of that formerly yielded by estate duty?
The Earl of Gowrie: My Lords, I confess to a certain personal bias against capital taxation generally—and I speak disinterestedly as I am not personally the possessor of capital. Nevertheless it seems to me a sensible thing for the economy to try to build up capital, rather than the reverse. As taxes go, £680 million seems to me to be a fair amount of revenue.
Lord Beswick: My Lords, would the noble Earl agree that there is another aspect to this? This wad of material I have here is only some of that which came to me within a space of two or three weeks. Most of it is on high-quality paper and there are prepaid envelopes. If this kind of costly extravagance had been shown by those who dig our coal or produce our gas would not the noble Earl be saying that it is evidence of waste in the public sector?
The Earl of Gowrie: My Lords, the trouble is that the noble Lord, Lord Beswick, is in the fortunate position, unlike myself, of being beseiged by people instructing him about the disposition of his taxes; so I do not quite know what he is referring to.
Lord Somers: My Lords, would not the noble Earl agree that all these various taxes on capital—capital gains, capital transfer, death duties, et cetera—are enough to dissuade anybody from making any money at all, even if it is possible?
The Earl of Gowrie: My Lords, that is precisely why we have tried to raise tax thresholds and narrow tax bands. I am encouraged to say that there is some evidence that people are trying to make a bit more money, and I hope that they will be able to keep it.
Lord Beswick: My Lords, may I congratulate the noble Earl on his cleverness in the last answer he gave me? But may I also ask him: is he not aware of this material that is going around?
The Earl of Gowrie: My Lords, I am aware that there is quite an industry which encourages individuals to invest in various forms of investment schemes the object of which is to lower the liability to taxation. I am not aware that this is doing any appreciable harm to the Inland Revenue. My advice from the revenue is that they are satisfied with the tax base of this particular form of taxation.
Lord Bruce-Gardyne: My Lords, is it not the case that the main single reason why the yield from capital transfer tax has hitherto been lower than the yield from death duties, which the party opposite replaced with CTT, is that the former Chancellor, Mr. Denis Healey, produced the surviving spouse concession? Is it not therefore somewhat illogical to complain at the result that that has produced?
The Earl of Gowrie: My Lords, I think it is not only illogical but it is rather a slap in the face of spouses. I should have thought that noble Lords opposite, of all persuasions and, indeed, all sexes, would be reluctant to engage in that.

Criminal Justice: Public Confidence
2.53 p.m.
Lord Gainford: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government what steps they are taking to strengthen public confidence in the criminal justice system.
The Minister of State, Home Office (Lord Elton): My Lords, a number. We have increased the resources available to the police, to the courts and to the probation and prison services, and we are now taking steps to ensure that they are applied as effectively as possible. We have modernised the law relating to police powers, made it uniform throughout the country, provided safeguards against its abuse, issued guidelines on its implementation and required police authorities to establish police/community consultative arrangements in their areas. We have increased the emphasis on crime prevention and established a Crime Prevention Unit.
Moreover, my right honourable friend the Home Secretary has responded to public anxiety about the worst crimes of drugs trafficking and violence by agreeing to only minimal periods of release on parole for those sentenced to more than five years for any of them, unless there are exceptional circumstances. On the release of life sentence prisoners, my right

433
honourable friend also exercises his discretion so that the most heinous murderers can normally expect to serve at least 20 years in custody.
Lord Gainford: My Lords, I thank my noble friend the Minister for that very full Answer. Can he give any information, additional to the obvious mass he has available, on the scheme to provide new courts in order to speed up the hearing of cases? Also, has he any information on the neighbourhood watch system?
Lord Elton: My Lords, as to magistrates' courts, we have just offered starts in 1987 for nine major schemes. For other courts, the present programme contains some 60 schemes in the planning, construction and adaptation stages. We actively encourage the use of neighbourhood watch schemes in order to support the police in the maintenance of law and order in all districts.
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, the House will no doubt appreciate the very long list of reforms that the Government have carried out. Would the noble Lord the Minister, with his usual modesty, admit that, in spite of them, the crime rate is proceeding apace, to a very worrying extent? Our prisons are still crowded. The situation in regard to remand periods for prisoners is still in a most uncivilised state. Is he prepared to come forward at some stage with proposals as to how our over-filled prisons can be dealt with except by the building of new prisons? Are there alternatives that are being considered to the question of imprisonment?
Lord Elton: My Lords, while I acknowledge that crime levels in the current year are higher than those in the year before, it is worth noting that the year before saw the first decrease in recorded crime for very many years, and it would therefore be unwise to exaggerate the importance of those statistics. As to prison overcrowding, I think the noble Lord knows of our building programme, which is designed to bring overcrowding to an end by the end of this decade, which is not very far off. If you cannot empty prisons either with the increased programme of non-custodial offences which we have provided or by accelerating the availability of justice in the courts, the only other way is to stop people committing crimes, and that is what neighbourhood watch and other methods of crime prevention are aimed at.
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, perhaps the noble Lord will forgive me if I merely remind him of my question about the uncivilised length of remand periods in custody.
Lord Elton: My Lords, the noble Lord, I am sure, will be the first to assist the Government in the Prosecution of Offences Bill in introducing a statutory limit on the time that may be taken to bring a case to court.
Lord Denning: My Lords, in view of the letter in The Times newspaper this morning, which showed that some defence counsel habitually challenge any potential juror who happens to be wearing a pin-stripe suit, or to look intelligent, or to wear a collar and a tie,
434
is it not time that we considered the abolition of the right of peremptory challenge?
Lord Elton: My Lords, I should be very foolish to answer that question in any definitive manner.
Lord Hunt: My Lords, while acknowledging the importance of the statement made by the Minister in answer to the original Question, and of course acknowledging the place, the importance and the necessity of prison sentences as a measure of deterrence and as a measure for protecting the public, I should like to ask him whether he would not agree that public confidence in our criminal justice system is likely to increase to the extent that the public themselves are encouraged, and have the means, to involve themselves in certain respects in the operation of non-custodial alternatives to imprisonment, based in local communities.
Lord Elton: My Lords, we are always anxious to increase the use of non-custodial sentences where they are appropriate, and have indeed legislated to make this necessary to the courts for young offenders. The noble Lord has a distinguished and long interest in this field of voluntary work, which I am happy to endorse.
Lord Avebury: My Lords, is there any evidence to show that the general public regarded the custodial penalties which were being imposed for particular classes of offences as inadequate, or that the custodial sentences that were being imposed did not have a proper effect on the rates of crime for those classes of offences as compared with other countries such as Holland, where there is about a third the number in prison, per head of the population, that we have in this country? May I also ask the noble Lord why, in that long list that he read out, he had nothing to say about racial attacks, which are a particular class of offence which I know is causing as much anxiety in the Home Office as it is to the public at large? Is the noble Lord able to say anything about the racial incidents panels, of which one has been appointed, I think, in Enfield and of which others are planned by the Home Office and the Metropolitan Police?
Lord Elton: My Lords, it is generally agreed that there was public anxiety about the increase in violent crimes and in drug trafficking and that my right honourable friend's response to that, in terms of the operation of his discretion to release offenders on parole licence or life licence, was properly used, and that was subsequently tested in the courts. As to the incidence of racial attacks, I am afraid that I do not have the statistics to hand but I shall write to the noble Lord and a copy will be placed in the Library.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, during his reply the noble Minister said that the role of the police is also part of our judicial system—indeed, we value their role very much in terms of their general behaviour. Is the noble Lord able either to tell me now or to write to me about whether, when a plain clothes officer goes to somebody's home to arrest him and is asked to show his warrant card, it is necessary for that officer to have his warrant card on him? Secondly, when someone is taken to a police station should he be warned that

435
anything that is said will be taken down? First, should a plain clothes officer produce his warrant card when making an arrest, and secondly, should people be warned when they are asked to make statements to the police?
Lord Elton: My Lords, the requirement for identification in the form of a warrant card or other identification is on the face of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act—which I think the noble Lord helped to put on the Statute Book—and so is a requirement for codes of conduct which specifically require the proper handling of all aspects of the questioning and detention of suspects in police stations.

Argentine Literature: Import Ban
3.2 p.m.
Lord Kennet: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government why they believe the ban on the import of books and papers from Argentina is in the national interest.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Trade and Industry (Lord Lucas of Chilworth): My Lords, the Government's embargo on the import of goods exported from Argentina applies to books and other publications only if they are imported for resale or redistribution. This reflects the Government's wish to discourage any trade which might benefit Argentina until their sanctions against United Kingdom firms have been dismantled. We have repeatedly urged the Argentine Government to agree to the reciprocal lifting of all remaining commercial and economic restrictions between us. So far the Argentines have not shown any willingness to respond.
Lord Kennet: My Lords, the House will be grateful to the noble Lord for explaining how the ban works. But is not the case thus: that the operation of the ban impoverishes British booksellers and enriches Argentine booksellers? Is it not a bit absurd that, two and a half years after the end of a war which lasted for only a month, we should still be frightened of the free exchange of the printed word between us? Finally, in a country which prides itself on the flexibility of its administrative arrangements—and I refer to our own—would it not be possible to find some way round this stupid ban?
Lord Lucas of Chilworth: My Lords, the Government acknowledge that the results of the embargo are perhaps less than perfect, but we must avoid setting precedents which would inevitably lead to the embargo being undermined. Such action would not assist in any way the Government's primary objective of securing a fully reciprocal lifting of all remaining commercial and economic sanctions.
Lord Shinwell: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that this is similar to the policy that we, alongside France, adopted at Versailles after the First World
436
War and which proved to our disadvantage and laid the foundations of another war? What is the reason for it? Do we want to continue this quarrel with the Argentine? Will that be to our advantage? Have we not had enough of it?
Lord Lucas of Chilworth: My Lords, I certainly was not aware of the matter raised in the first part of Lord Shinwell's question. The reality of the matter is that the Falkland Islands were invaded. We wish to move to more normal relations with the Argentine but we and the people of the Falklands are entitled first to have it made clear that there is no further intention of hostilities. We have made a number of efforts at reconciliation with regard to trade, but the Argentine have consistently and explicitly refused to give the confirmation for which we ask over that first matter.
Lord Strabolgi: My Lords, has the Minister seen the letter in The Times from the director of a foreign language university booksellers which is a very reputable firm? If so, is he also aware that that firm has had a consignment of Argentine books and literature held up now for well over a year, that they have been obliged to pay the exporter for the consignment, and that at least 25 universities and many students are without this material which they need for their studies? Can the Government not make some distinction as regards cultural matters of this kind, and grow up?
Lord Lucas of Chilworth: My Lords, I have not seen the letter to which the noble Lord, Lord Strabolgi, refers. But there is no question of growing up or not growing up. Students, university and higher educational libraries have established direct import links with booksellers in the Argentine and they are not affected by any embargo.
Viscount Montgomery of Alamein: My Lords, does my noble friend appreciate that before the recent tragic conflict, Anglo-Argentine two-way trade exceeded some £300 million in total? Does he further appreciate that the Argentine economy is in some difficulty, that we are currently in the process of debt renegotiations, and that everything should be done to stimulate their foreign trade? Moreover, does he also appreciate that we, as one of their previous strong partners, would be well advised to make some type of magnanimous gesture (particularly as we were the victors in the unfortunate conflict) to stimulate this trade and thereby encourage the Argentine economy to recover to the benefit of all concerned?
Lord Lucas of Chilworth: My Lords, I am very well aware of the figures pertaining to our trade with the Argentine before the outbreak of hostilities to which my noble friend Lord Montgomery refers. So far as financial matters are concerned, we have made some relaxation in order that the Argentine's debt rescheduling programme—required by the IMF—may be encouraged and that thereby their own economy will also be encouraged.
Lord Kilmarnock: My Lords, will the noble Lord accept that the present rules have precisely the opposite effect to that intended by the Government? Is it not the case that they affect British booksellers

437
adversely because they are unable to import these books directly from the Argentine, but Argentine booksellers are allowed to export directly into the United Kingdom? Is it not absurd that books addressed to British booksellers should be lying under seizure in Her Majesty's Customs when they can be ordered direct from Buenos Aires?
Lord Lucas of Chilworth: My Lords, I do not agree with the noble Lord that the present arrangements have exactly the opposite effect to that which is intended. Unless I have misunderstood the noble Lord, the Argentines may export individual books, magazines and other publications to this country provided that they are not imported into this country for resale, or trade, or redistribution. So there is no disadvantage to students and other institutions.
Lord Kilmarnock: My Lords, is there not a disadvantage to British booksellers?
Lord Lucas of Chilworth: My Lords, there is certainly a disadvantage to British booksellers, but we also have to look at the wider aspects of our trade, and while the Argentine prohibits the import from the United Kingdom of products other than those which they specifically need for their own national interest, it would not be right that we should put our own people at a serious disadvantage.
Lord Kennet: My Lords, will the noble Lord be so good as to draw this exchange to the attention of the noble Baroness, the Minister of State, who is responsible, under the Foreign Secretary, for relations with Argentina and who is sitting two places down the Bench from him?
Lord Lucas of Chilworth: My Lords, I am quite sure that my noble friend will take note of the exchanges that have occurred in the House this afternoon.

Business
Lord Denham: My Lords, at a convenient moment after 3.30 this afternoon my noble friend Lord Brabazon of Tara will, with the leave of the House, repeat a Statement that is to be made in another place on the Johnson Matthey Bank.
Friendly Societies Bill
Read a third time and passed.

Enduring Powers of Attorney Bill [H.L.]
The Lord Chancellor (Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone): My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now resolve itself into Committee on this Bill.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The LORD WELLS-PESTELL in the Chair.]
Clause 1 agreed to.
Clause 2 [Characteristics of an enduring power.]:
Lord Mishcon Lord Mishcon moved Amendment No. 1:
Page 3, line 17, leave out ("he") and insert ("the donor").
The noble Lord said: On the Second Reading of this Bill a general welcome was given to the Bill by all sections of the House, because it was realised that in the present circumstances someone who becomes mentally unstable and unable to look after his or her affairs must have a remedy open to him or her in regard to his or her affairs at the Court of Protection. It is an informal procedure and the officers of that court behave with great kindliness, and have done so for a long period of time. But the formalities that have to be observed and the expense involved obviously make it an unnecessary procedure if an alternative procedure can be envisaged. Of course, the Bill aims to do just that. In those circumstances, but with due protection, the Bill seeks to offer as a remedy the giving of an enduring power of attorney, subject, as I have said, to various protective measures which are laid down in the Bill.
I have used those opening words only because they have a relevance to this first amendment. In regard to the amendments to which I shall speak, I have the privilege of saying that they have the full support of the Law Society. Indeed, in large measure, they are the initiative of the Law Society which, as usual, has received every consideration from the Lord Chancellor's Department in discussions on this Bill.
One of the provisions contained in Clause 2 deals with the question of the validity of the enduring power and says that it will not be an effective power if the attorney who is appointed has not attained the age of 18. Noble Lords may think that that is a very acceptable and sensible provision, but the Bill does not say when the proposed attorney has to attain the age of 18. It would seem from the reading of the Bill that the relevant date is the date when it is executed by the attorney. Does that mean that the donor of the power can execute the power and then the young attorney, if he happens to be 17 and a bit, can wait until he is 18 before he executes it, and then, and only then, the power of attorney becomes an enforceable, valid power of attorney? Surely the relevant date is not the date that the young attorney chooses; it must be the date when the donor of the power executes the power of attorney. If then the attorney is 18 years old, it is a valid power; and if he is not 18 years old, it is not a valid power.
Therefore, the amendment purely seeks to say that the relevant date for dealing with the validity of an enduring power of attorney ought to be the date of the execution of the power by the donor, and as to whether at that date the proposed attorney had attained the age of 18 years. I beg to move.
The Lord Chancellor: I am grateful to the Law Society for raising this question and to the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, for ventilating it in the Committee. As the noble Lord has told the Committee, as drafted, the Bill allows the donor the power to appoint an attorney

439
who is a minor, provided, but only provided, the attorney does not execute the instrument before he reaches the age of 18. That is not an oversight on the part of the draftsman. As I say, I am grateful to the Law Society for drawing attention to the fact, but what they have not done is to show why the present draft is objectionable. I have, of course, referred this question back to the Law Commission and to my own department, and neither can see why it should be objectionable, provided the minor executes the instrument after he has attained the age of 18.
It may very well be in the donor's interest to appoint an attorney as young as possible, particularly if the power is not to come into force until many years later, and the donor may wish to appoint one or more of his children as his attorney, particularly if they are nearing the age of 18. So far as we can see, there are no good legal or policy reasons why he should be denied this right and there is no danger to the donor in making such an appointment. If the donor's mental capacity supervenes at any time before the attorney executes the instrument, it would of course have the effect of revoking any ordinary power already in existence and preventing the creation of an enduring power. It is not possible for the power to be a valid enduring power unless and until both the donor and the proposed attorney have executed it. Clause 2(7)(a) makes it clear that when he executes the instrument the proposed attorney must have attained the age of 18.
There is probably an unintentional danger in the amendment, as drafted, because it allows the possibility of a bankrupt attorney to represent the donor. The proposed attorney could be solvent when the donor executes the instrument but bankrupt when executing it himself. This matter has been referred back to the Law Commission, with the result that I have sought to explain. I would respectfully suggest that, grateful as we are for the opportunity to discuss the matter, the draft as it exists is the better alternative of the two.
Lord Mishcon: I am sure that the Committee is most grateful to the noble and learned Lord for elucidating this matter. I have brought it before the Committee at the wish of the Law Society and I believe that the Committee will probably be more satisfied with the noble and learned Lord's answer than they were with my amendment. I therefore crave leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Mishcon Lord Mishcon moved Amendment No. 2:
Page 3, line 25, leave out from ("successor") to end of line 25 and insert ("shall only be valid as an enduring power so long as the attorney originally appointed by the donor himself acts as such attorney.")
The noble Lord said: Again I wish to raise a short point, if I may try to put it clearly. In the Bill there is a provision which this amendment seeks to deal with, which says that if you have an enduring power and that enduring power contains a provision that the attorney may have a substitute or an alternative, then the enduring power is void and nothing about it can be done because it is a void instrument ab initio. What this amendment seeks to do is to say this: there is surely no reason why the enduring power should cease
440
to have any validity at all merely because this provision has slipped into it, as it were. It is quite effective as an ordinary power of attorney, and those of us who have to deal with these matters know that it is quite a normal provision in some powers of attorney to have the right to appoint a substitute and to delegate it that way.
We therefore say that we accept completely that an enduring power of attorney should not contain within it the ability for the power to go on as an effective instrument if indeed the original donor of the power is not carrying out his duties because he is no longer there able to do it. Therefore we say that it is not void ab initio, but, if I may turn to the wording of the amendment, it,
"shall only be valid as an enduring power so long as"—
and if I may interpolate these words: only so long as—
"the attorney originally appointed by the donor himself acts as such attorney".
That would prevent some provision which is put in, possibly accidentally, stopping the enduring power of attorney from being effective at all even while the original donor was acting perfectly properly under it. I beg to move.
The Lord Chancellor: This is again a matter in regard to which I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, for ventilating. It involves a slightly more technical and possibly a slightly longer reply on my part. It is not easy to explain this in words of one syllable, but I shall try to be as simple as I can.
Under the Bill as drafted Clause 2(9) provides that a power of attorney which gives the attorney a right to appoint a substitute or successor cannot be an enduring power of attorney. The effect of the amendment, if passed, would be that such a power of attorney could be an enduring power but only so long as the attorney originally appointed acted in person. Once he attempted to appoint a substitute or successor the enduring power would cease to be valid.
I have now to make a short discursion on the existing law apart from the Bill. Under the existing law on powers of attorney an instrument in which the donor appoints an attorney but himself nominates substitutes or successors in his place is valid. Such an instrument, however, will not create a valid enduring power under the Bill, since Clause 11(1) provides that an instrument which appoints more than one person to be an attorney cannot create an enduring power unless the attorneys are appointed to act jointly, or jointly and severally.
Under the existing law it is not clear whether an instrument which gives an attorney the right to appoint a substitute or a successor—that is to delegate as it were, or to substitute somebody else for himself—can be valid. That is not clear under the existing law. But the Law Commission were quite clear that, whatever the position might turn out to be in relation to ordinary powers, such an instrument should not create a valid enduring power. It would strike at the special relationship of trust which must subsist between the donor and the attorney.
Moreover, since the substitute or successor attorney might be appointed after the donor had become mentally incapable, the donor would not be in a

441
position to object to the person chosen by the attorney as his substitute or successor, though he might well have objected had he been in full possession of his mental faculties.
The amendment does not strike at this fundamental objection, but only seeks to validate an instrument which allows the attorney to appoint a substitute or successor so long as that right has not been exercised. However, the Law Commission on this, as on the previous amendment, were consulted and when consulted they were concerned that if the policy behind the amendment were adopted, the attorney could register the instrument, so creating the enduring power, and then appoint a substitute or successor, or purport to do so. The donor would be in no position to do anything about this, and the Court of Protection could not do so either because they probably would not get to know about its having been done.
There is also another danger, and that danger would be that third parties might deal with the substitute or successor in the belief that the power was still a valid enduring power. The Commission therefore thought it preferable to retain Clause 2(9) in its present form so as to prevent an instrument from ever being registered and so creating an enduring power. For those reasons, expressing again my gratitude for this rather esoteric point having been ventilated in Parliament, I stand by the Bill in its present drafted form.
Lord Denning: I hope your Lordships will not accept this amendment. It is contrary to principle that an attorney should himself appoint a successor. It is the donor of the power who appoints him. The right way to deal with any instrument such as this which purports to give him power to appoint, etc., is to say that it is completely invalid. It cannot be an excluding power.
Lord Mishcon: It was an esoteric point. It was, I hope, dealt with in ordinary English and with due simplicity and clarity, certainly by the noble and learned Lord. I turn, with the deference with which I always do, to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Denning, and would point out to him that it was not a question of the attorney having this right alone; it was a matter for the donor as well having this right which would vitiate the question of the enduring power of attorney under this Bill. However, the matter has been ventilated. Obviously I respect the reaction of the Law Commission to this matter, and I think it would be wrong for me to try to press the point. I have brought it before the Committee. I now ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 2 agreed to.
Clause 3 agreed to.
Clause 4 [Duties of attorney in event of actual or impending incapacity of donor]:
3.30 p.m.
Lord Mishcon Lord Mishcon moved Amendment No. 3:
Page 5, line 8, leave out subsection (7).
The noble Lord said: Again a simple principle is involved with which I hope I can deal in proper
442
simplicity. It is objectionable as a general principle that one duplicates criminal offences. In other words, if a criminal offence exists under statute, and it is already clearly there, it is objectionable to repeat that offence in another Act because this only leads to confusion.
My respectful submission is one which no doubt will be opposed by the noble and learned Lord, and if it is opposed, and opposed with reason, I shall immediately pursue the same course that I have pursued so far in regard to withdrawing the amendment. I am dealing at this moment with Clause 4, subsection (7), on page 5. That reads, as your Lordships will see:
"Any person who, in an application for registration, makes a statement which he knows to be false in a material particular shall be liable—on conviction on indictment"—
and there the punishments are set forth, and
"on summary conviction"—
and there, again, the punishment is set forth.
It is the opinion of the Law Society that the existing criminal law covers all these reprehensible actions; and indeed more reprehensible actions than are dealt with in this particular subsection which a naughty attorney might get up to. In particular Section 15 of the Theft Act would undoubtedly apply to such acts of dishonesty and it is in these circumstances, and only with this principle in mind, that I move the amendment to delete this subsection as being unnecessary, since it is already covered, in my respectful submission, by existing law. I beg to move.
Lord Denning: May I say that I have a good deal of sympathy with this amendment. Not only is it covered by the Theft Act but Section 5 of the Perjury Act 1911 deals expressly with false statements which are made in a document of a statutory nature which are required to be executed by statute. But there the offence is "knowingly and wilfully" making a mistake in a material particular. In other words, the wilfulness is an essential ingredient apart from the knowing. In Archbold's Pleading, Evidence and Practice, in referring to this Section 5 of the Perjury Act 1911, the form in which this section is cast has led to a subsequent proliferation of statutory offences related to making false statements.
The difficulty with the clause as it is is that it refers to something done "knowingly", whereas the report of the Law Commission deals with offences of dishonesty committed by the attorney. I suggest that the dishonest aspect of it could come in with the word "wilfully", as in the Perjury Act, or with the simpler words "with intent to defraud or deceive". In other words, this makes a criminal offence of just knowingly making a false statement in a material particular. I am not sure that to cover dishonesty, which the Law Commission wants, you ought not to have "with intent to defraud or deceive" or the "wilfully" of the Perjury Act. In other words, I do not like this criminal offence going so far as it does.
The Lord Chancellor: I would accept the premise of the argument presented by the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, at once. There was a medieval philosopher

443
called Occam who invented a saying called "the razor" which said,
"Entia non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessitatem".
That means in relation to criminal offences, "Don't make more than you have to". Therefore, I start with the presumption that the premise of Lord Mishcon's argument is correct. It is also correct that there are cases which would be affected by the criminal offence which would be created by the Bill as drafted under subsection (7) of Clause 4 which would be covered by Section 15 of the Theft Act 1968. I have not myself considered Section 5 of the Perjury Act 1911, and I will therefore consider it between now and Report without expressing a concluded opinion upon whether that would or would not apply to the present case. At present I have some doubts in the matter but I would not venture to put my opinion in front of that or my noble and learned friend on the Cross Benches. I will therefore consider that further.
But Section 15 of the Theft Act 1968, which was the section referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, does not cover the situation where the attorney makes a false statement while having no intention of depriving the donor of property. It is of course accepted, as I have indicated, that Section 15 will deal with attorneys who dishonestly appropriate the donor's property after registration but it does not deal with attorneys who make dishonest statements which might affect the attitude of the court of protection towards registration. The main purpose of the registration is to protect the donor, and it is for this purpose essential that the statements which are made to the court of protection are correct. It is not at all unusual for there to be a criminal sanction with regard to dishonest statements when people make official applications, as this is, in other areas of the criminal law, as for instance applications for a passport, or driving licence applications.
Moreover, the criminal offence as drafted in Clause 4(7) is not particularly wide. To attract the criminal sanction the statement must be false in a material particular and the maker of it must know that it is false when he makes it. Because the requirements of the offence are so strict there is therefore no danger that a person who innocently makes a statement which is false, particularly a statement on an unimportant matter, will be caught by the offence. It is considered better to have the chance to deal with the dishonest attorney at the point of registration rather than wait and see until he actually dishonestly appropriates the donor's property after the instrument has been registered.
Therefore, on the whole, recognising that there are things to be said in favour certainly of the premise of the argument founded by the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, I would have stuck to the text as drafted because it is essential to support the court of protection and therefore to put a sanction behind the honesty of the statement, at the moment of registration, rather than at the moment of deprivation. For that reason I would have stuck to the text as drafted. As I say, I will consider the point of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Denning, and write to him if necessary; or we can have a further discussion on Report.
Lord Mishcon: I am grateful to both noble and learned Lords. The point raised by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Denning, is certainly worthy of examination. I tried to cover it in my own way by saying that in this regard there were existing provisions in the criminal law, but the noble and learned Lord, Lord Denning, went into it in greater detail, referring to the Perjury Act.
The noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor has agreed to look into the matter. Therefore, I ask him, if I may, for the courtesy of sending to me a copy of any letter he sends to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Denning. I ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
The Lord Chancellor: I beg to move that the House be now resumed for the purpose of repeating the Statement.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
House resumed.

Banking Supervision
3.41 p.m.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, with the leave of the House I shall now repeat a statement on banking supervision which is being made in another place by my right honourable friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer.
"I have now considered with the Governor of the Bank of England the events leading up to the rescue operation conducted by the Bank on 1st October. It is clear that the case raises important issues about our present procedures of banking supervision, and the legislative framework within which it is conducted.
"The Governor and I have therefore agreed to a full review of the present supervisory arrangements, and to consider whether any early changes in present supervisory procedures are needed. Issues to which particular attention will be given are the relationship between auditors and supervisors; staff experience and training; the handling of concentrations of risk and the assessment of quality of assets; notification and collection of statistics; and the adequacy and deployment of staff resources in the Banking Supervision Department.
"The review will also consider whether a more effective framework is required than that provided by the 1979 Banking Act.
"I shall be placing a copy of the terms of reference of the review in the House Library.
"I shall of course inform the House as early as possible of the results of the review, including any legislative changes I think necessary."
My Lords, that concludes the Statement.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, may I first thank the noble Lord for repeating to your Lordships the Statement which was made by the Chancellor of the Exchequer. It seems to me that the most significant

445
point about the Statement is that it is being made at all after 10 weeks have elapsed since the rescue operation. Is he aware that, although his Statement is meant to be reassuring, it may instead lead to an intensification of fears rather than allaying them?
Does he also accept that the City has been anxious about the whole affair for the past 10 weeks and does the delay in making the Statement reflect disagreement between the Treasury and the Bank of England over the actions of the Bank in mounting the rescue operation? We should like to know that.
With regard to the Banking Act 1979, why did we have to wait for a collapse of this sort before a review of the Act was put in hand? There have surely been many instances and many fears expressed before this particular collapse which should have ensured that a review of the Banking Act was put in hand well before this serious event.
May I also ask the noble Lord about the position of the auditors, Arthur Young McLelland and Moores, who gave Johnson Matthey a clean bill of health? Are they to be the subject of an examination by their own profession, for many fears and many doubts have been expressed about their rôle in this particular affair? I should like the noble Lord's comments about whether this particular firm of auditors is to be the subject of examination, at least by the profession.
Finally, may I ask the noble Lord whether the Robin Leigh-Pemberton doctrine of firms standing on their own two feet applies only to manufacturing industry? Does it not extend to financial and City institutions, as seems to be the case? There seems to be one rule for manufacturing industry and one rule for financial institutions.
Lord Ezra: My Lords, I also should like to thank the noble Lord for repeating the Statement. I should like to say, first, that we on these Benches fully support the intention of the Government to review the banking supervisory arrangements. We possess in Britain one of the most efficient and reliable banking establishments in the world and, as necessary, we need to ensure that that continues whenever weaknesses arise. Having said that, however, in the case of the particular rescue operation that has given rise to this review I think it is permissible to ask a few questions.
The first question must surely be why was it necessary, even under the present supervisory arrangements, for such precipitate and apparently costly action to be taken to solve this problem? Had the difficulties emerged earlier, the costs of the rescue would presumably have been less.
Secondly, in dealing with this issue, what were the relations between the Bank of England and the Treasury? Was the Treasury made fully aware of the situation from the start and did it concur in what was done, or was this purely a Bank of England operation?
Thirdly, and relating to that issue, have public monies been used in this rescue operation? If they have been used, surely the consent of the Treasury should have been obtained. It would be helpful if the noble Lord would answer those questions.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, I thank both noble Lords for receiving the Statement. Regarding the questions of the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart, as to why we should need to have the review now, the Chancellor has considered the issues and thinks that it is sensible to make a Statement. There are no sinister reasons whatsoever for this. There is no disagreement whatsoever between the Bank and the Treasury. The Banking Act 1979 has only been in force since 1980 so there have been no grounds for an earlier review.
The noble Lord also asked about Johnson Matthey's auditors and whether they would be examined by their own authorities. That is a matter for them, not for us. This could be something which the review might look at in general terms, but not specifically.
The noble Lord, Lord Ezra, asked why we do not use the same sort of funds to save manufacturing industry—
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: I asked that, my Lords.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, I beg your Lordships' pardon. This was a decision made by the Governor of the Bank, not by the Government. It is, however, the Government's view that the main part of Johnson Matthey's business was viable and that the consequences of the failure would have spread well beyond Johnson Matthey itself. I should say that it is the Bank's money being used, not Government money in this case.
The noble Lord, Lord Ezra, asked whether the Treasury had been told. Yes, the Chancellor was told a short time before the operation took place, but, as I say, the Bank of England looks after these things and it was its decision to carry out this operation.
I hope that I have answered all the questions put to me.
Lord Kilmarnock: My Lords, does this not raise serious questions as to liaison between the Treasury and the Bank of England? Is the noble Lord aware that on 12th November, Mr. Nigel Lawson, the Chancellor, wrote to my right honourable friend Dr. David Owen saying that the decision was entirely the Bank's, and that three days prior to that, on the 9th, the Governor of the Bank of England had also written to my right honourable friend saying that the Chancellor was informed before the decision was implemented? What is the true position?
Is it not the case that the Treasury ought to be involved if it is a question of public funds? I think that the noble Lord said that the funds were not considered to be public money as they came from the Bank's reserves. Is it not the case that the Bank's reserves are public money? If the reserves are depleted, will they not have to be replenished? And is it not the case that the Bank might have to cut its dividends to the Treasury so that there might be an indirect loss to the Treasury? How is it possible to say that public money was not involved in this case?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, it is possible that the Bank might have to cut its dividends to the Treasury, but this is the Bank of England's money. As I have said, the Governor informed the Chancellor. That is all that he is obliged to do. It is the Governor

447
of the Bank of England who is responsible for making these decisions; and he uses the Governor's funds if they are necessary to make up the losses.
Lord Kilmarnock: My Lords, will the noble Lord undertake that the review, when it is put into operation, will look seriously into this matter of liaison between the Bank and the Treasury?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, that undertaking I think I can definitely give.

Enduring Powers of Attorney Bill [H.L.]
House again in Committee.
Clause 4 agreed to.
Clause 5 [Functions of court prior to registration]:
The Lord Chancellor The Lord Chancellor moved Amendment No. 4:
Page 5, line 20, leave out from ("necessary") to end of line 8 on page 6 and insert (", before the instrument creating the power is registered, to exercise any power with respect to the power of attorney or the attorney appointed to act under it which would become exercisable under section 8(2) on its registration, the court may exercise that power under this section and may do so whether the attorney has or has not made an application to the court for the registration of the instrument.").
The noble and learned Lord said: If I may, I shall move Amendment No. 4 and speak also to Amendment No. 8, which is purely consequential upon it.
Amendment No. 8: Schedule 3, page 18, line 26, leave out ("(2)").
My name appears to this amendment, and it is therefore a Government amendment, but we really owe it to the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Elwyn-Jones, who drew our attention to the weakness which this amendment is designed to cure. Therefore, I have to express gratitude to them, and I hope that the Committee will record its gratitude to them rather than to me because all that I did was to put the thing to the Government's draftsman, who has done it (I think in a slightly more elegant form, but with the same effect) as the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, had originally proposed to do it.
The fact is that Clause 5(2) and Clause 8(2) give the Court of Protection identical powers, in the first case to be exercised prior to registration of the instrument and in the second case to be exercised in the case of a registered power. This involves an unnecessary duplication of drafting, and this is the way it is now proposed to remove the unnecessary duplication. Therefore, with due expressions of gratitude to the real source of the improvement, I beg to move.
Lord Elwyn-Jones: I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord for taking up the suggestions of the Law Society so clearly explained by my noble friend Lord Mishcon. This has at least enabled me to say something in the course of these proceedings. It may also be convenient to indicate that further amendments which purport also to be in my name will be moved by my noble friend.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 5 not moved.]
Clause 5, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 6 agreed to.
Clause 7 [Effect and proof of registration, etc.]:
Lord Mishcon Lord Mishcon moved Amendment No. 6:
Page 7, line 42, leave out paragraph (b).
The noble Lord said: I move this amendment by asking one question. Has not disclaimer already been dealt with by Clause 2(12)? If that be so, should not this amendment be accepted? I beg to move.
The Lord Chancellor: I am grateful, again, to the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon. This amendment was proposed, I think, not because it was believed that the provision was objectionable in substance but precisely—and the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, has confirmed it—because there was a similar provision in Clause 2(12) and it was believed, therefore, that Clause 7(1)(b) was repetitious and unnecessary. I think that this argument, for which I am grateful, overlooks, however, the differences between the provisions; and it also overlooks a third similar provision contained in Clause 4(6).
All three provisions are necessary. Each is slightly different from the other two. Each is logically correct where it appears. There are two distinct situations: where the donor is mentally capable, notice of the disclaimer has to be given to him; where he is mentally incapable, notice has to be given to the Court of Protection. Since Clause 2 deals with all the characteristics of an enduring power, subsection (12) deals with both these situations. It is, however, the only provision in the Bill requiring that notice has to be given to the donor when the latter is mentally capable. When the donor is, or is becoming, mentally incapable (so that notice has to be given to the Court of Protection) the situation is dealt with in two separate provisions; namely, Clause 4(6), which deals with disclaimers before registration, and Clause 7(1)(b) (which is the one currently under discussion), which deals with disclaimers after registration.
The proposed amendment is also technically defective in that a consequential amendment would be needed to Clause 8(4)(a). For these reasons, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, but I hope that I have given an adequate explanation.
Lord Mishcon: I am most grateful to the noble and learned Lord for the explanation that he has given. It was only because one was anxious to raise the principle as to whether there was not a repetition which was needless that the amendment was put down; and that is why—and I am sure that the noble and learned Lord realises this—it was not followed through, as it will be, of course, at a later stage in the Bill, if another fate had been accorded this amendment. In view of what the noble and learned Lord has said, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 7 agreed to.
Clause 8 agreed to.
Lord Mishcon Lord Mishcon moved Amendment No. 7:
After Clause 8, insert the following new clause—
Tax returns
(". Notwithstanding the Tax returns provisions of section 72 of the Taxes Management Act 1972 when an instrument has been registered under section 6 of this Act the Inland Revenue shall recognise the attorney acting pursuant to such instrument as the

449
duly authorised representative of the donor for the purpose of signing any tax returns.")
The noble Lord said: This is an amendment of some substance, and certainly of practical importance. As the Committee probably knows, there is a practice of the Revenue which prohibits an attorney from signing, for example, a tax return on behalf of the person appointing him as his attorney. One can well appreciate the reason for that. It is that there would be most likely every excuse for an attorney to say that he did not know of the person who had appointed him attorney, he did not know of that person's actual means, and that when he made the return he honestly believed it was true; whereas if the taxpayer himself makes the return he is deemed to know what he possesses and therefore if he says something which is inaccurate, or if he omits something, the Revenue want to have their rights and remedies against him. Therefore, that is the normal answer, the normal practice, normal procedure—and very understandable it is.
But now we are dealing with a very different type of case. Perhaps before saying that I ought to pay tribute to the Revenue and say that where a genuine case comes before them, where the taxpayer is very old or suffers from some physical disability, and they are satisfied in the circumstances that that procedure ought to be adopted, they will accept an attorney's signature. But now we are dealing with a very different situation under this Bill, because the Bill is meant to cover only those who, by reason of their mental state as from the date of the enforceability of the power of attorney, are to have no legal rights whatsoever. Indeed, they could not sign the return and make it a valid and proper return. It has to be done by the attorney.
4 p.m.
In the discussions which have taken place—and the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor will correct me if my information is in any way inaccurate—the Lord Chancellor's Department was good enough to consult the Inland Revenue, and apparently what the Inland Revenue are saying is that they do not anticipate any difficulty because they would normally allow such a procedure to take place; namely, the tax return I have given as an example would be signed by the attorney and they would normally accept it.
But is that good enough since the attorney cannot require that acceptance? If the Revenue do not accept the attorney's signature to that tax return, what would happen would be this. The whole purpose of the Bill would be defeated and the family of the taxpayer would then not be able to rely at all upon its provisions and would have to go to the Court of Protection and go through the whole of the procedure in order to see that a proper tax return is rendered by a person who has the right and power to do so. That would, of course, be a defeat, as I said, of the whole purpose of the Bill. For the life of me I cannot see why there should not be in the Bill a clear provision that says that in a matter of this kind the Revenue shall accept the attorney who has not only been appointed by the donor but the attorney who, if I may put it this way, has been investigated by
450
the Court of Protection and it is found that all the matters that are supposed to be there in protection of the donor have been carried through and everybody is satisfied that he is a proper and rightful attorney.
That may have some sort of reflection upon the provisions of Section 72 of the Taxes Management Act 1972. That is why, in what I hope is wording that is not too clumsy—and, frankly, it is my own wording—I have tried to say that:
"Notwithstanding the provisions of section 72 of the Taxes Management Act 1972 when an instrument has been registered under … this Act the Inland Revenue shall recognise the attorney acting pursuant to such instrument as the duly authorised representative of the donor for the purpose of signing any tax returns."
There was a method, if I may say so, behind my saying to the Committee that the wording of this amendment was entirely my own because I have mentioned in the past that these amendments have been initiated by the Law Society, and if there is any defect in the wording (and lam sure that the noble and learned Lord realises that it is really the principle which is involved here at Committee stage) I should not like the learned Law Society to be blamed for it. I beg to move.
Lord Davies of Leek: I just want to ask a simple question. Does the word "shall" mean, and is it semantically exactly the same as, "shall be obliged"?
Lord Mishcon: I cannot at the moment detect any difference between the two.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: May I very briefly support the substance and principle of this amendment and in doing so be allowed to pay a tribute not only to the Court of Protection, but also to the way in which the Revenue work in such circumstances, as I know from my own personal experiences, which were somewhat unfortunate in regard to my own family? But why should a normal concessionary practice stand? Really, it is not, it seems to me, apposite in the circumstances of this case; and although maybe the Court of Protection and no doubt the Revenue would operate the concessionary practice reasonably and fairly, this is not really a matter for concessionary practice within the recast framework of this Bill. For those reasons I support the principle, although the drafting may be a little beyond me.
The Lord Chancellor: Again, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon. In this case, if I may, I should like more time to consider the matter, and if he will be good enough to withdraw this particular amendment, I would hope to see whether further discussions can find a satisfactory solution before the Bill leaves this House; indeed, I hope at the next stage. There is one error, but only one, that I have been told about, and I think it is either a misprint or a lapsus calarni. The Taxes Management Act referred to should be 1972, not 1970. Has it been changed? If so, then it has been changed since I last looked at the text, and I am very grateful. Apart from that, the situation is a genuine one and it has been explained by the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon. I hope it will ultimately result in an improvement to the Bill.
There is no doubt that, as the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, urged, once the donor of the power is

451
mentally incapacitated, it would be to the benefit of all concerned—that is to say, to the donor himself (by this time mentally incapacitated), his attorney, and the Inland Revenue—if correspondence relating to the donor's tax matters could be addressed to the attorney and if the attorney could sign tax returns on behalf of the donor. But there is one difficulty. In other circumstances, where one person has the direction, control or management of the property of an incapacitated person, Section 72 of the Taxes Management Act 1970—I got it the wrong way round in my first attempt, but now I have got it the right way round; it is 1970, not 1972—provides that the person having such,
"direction, control or management … shall be assessable and chargeable to income tax in like manner and to the like amount"
as the incapacitated person would be if he were not incapacitated.
In other words, if effect were given to this amendment, the unfortunate attorney would find himself liable personally for the return, and that might deter proposed attorneys from accepting the responsibilities of their office. The Inland Revenue, possibly understandably, are somewhat reluctant to make an exception in favour of attorneys under an enduring power which they would not make in other cases. But I hope that all this can be resolved by friendly discussion.
There may be, I am told, other difficulties, of which I should like the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, and others to have notice, such as where the attorney is empowered to deal with only part of the donor's estate; that is a highly technical matter. If the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, will withdraw his amendment now, I hope that discussions can go on and a favourable solution be arrived at.
Lord Mishcon: I am most grateful to the noble and learned Lord and I readily accept his suggestion. In the circumstances, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
On Question, Whether Clauses 9 to 14 shall stand part of the Bill?
The Lord Chancellor: I give notice that at the Report stage I may have to return to Clause 9. But subject to that, I naturally support the Question.
Clauses 9 to 14 agreed to.
Schedules 1 and 2 agreed to.
Schedule 3 [Joint and joint and several attorneys]:
The Lord Chancellor The Lord Chancellor moved Amendment No. 8:
[Printed earlier: col. 447.]
The noble and learned Lord said: I have already spoken to this amendment. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Schedule 3, as amended, agreed to.
House resumed: Bill reported with amendments.

Supplementary Benefit (Requirements) Amendment and Temporary Provisions Regulations 1984
4.15 p.m.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health and Social Security (Lord Glenarthur)The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health and Social Security (Lord Glenarthur) rose to move, That the draft regulations laid before the House on 22nd November be approved. [3rd Report from the Joint Committee.]
The noble Lord said: My Lords, the main purpose of the regulations before the House today is to empower the Government to impose a temporary freeze on the maximum amounts of supplementary benefit payable to people in all forms of board and lodging accommodation, otherwise commonly known as the "local limits". The freeze is the first step in the overall action we are proposing as a result of the very disturbing facts that have become available during the past few months, on the rapid rise in board and lodging expenditure. There is, of course, nothing new about the basic arrangements for payments to people in board and lodging accommodation—those were firmly established in the days of the Supplementary Benefits Commission—but the sudden sharp increases in spending since 1982 indicate a new trend, present particular problems and demand firm action. The figures have been repeated often recently, but I think they are worth quoting again to set both the scale of the problem and these draft regulations in context.
Expenditure on supplementary benefit claimants in private and voluntary residential care and nursing homes rose from £39 million in December 1982 to £102 million in December 1983. The corresponding figures for the ordinary board and lodging sector—guest houses, hostels and the like—were £166 million at December 1982 and a massive £277 million at December 1983. Our latest estimates are that total expenditure on this is now running at a level of some £570 million. Unless action is taken, this figure is likely to rise by a further 50 per cent. by December 1985. It would be quite irresponsible to allow this sort of trend to continue, and to do so might very well jeopardise expenditure on other parts of the the social security programme. It is against that background that the Government announced on 5th September their determination to act swiftly to bring expenditure in this field under control. Additional evidence that has become available since September only strengthens the need for urgent action.
The current system of local limits was introduced in November 1983 in a move to prevent exploitation. A previous open-ended commitment to meet charges, however high, in certain circumstances, was withdrawn and the system of determining basic entitlement was refined. Offices were advised to set local limits for the three new tiers of accommodation—ordinary board and lodging, residential care homes, and nursing homes. We undertook to monitor the new arrangements, and in doing so we grew concerned about both the scale of the increases that occurred in November 1983—the average ordinary board and lodging limit, for example, rose some 39 per cent. from £47·50 to £66—and about the very wide range of the new limits. Again, I make no apology for repeating the figures.
For ordinary board and lodging, the range was from £40 in Manchester (Wythenshaw) to £110 in Kingston; for residential care homes from £51 in Shoreditch to £215 in Leytonstone; and for nursing homes from £80 in Liverpool Belle Vale to £295 in Leytonstone again. There is mounting evidence that landlords of hotels and guest houses in particular see the higher current board and lodging limits as very attractive; some landlords have been advertising for supplementary benefit claimants, and increasing numbers of young people have been setting themselves up in seaside resorts. The supplementary benefit scheme is intended to meet genuine need, not to enable young people to choose a comfortable life-style by the seaside at the taxpayers' expense.
We have placed a list of the current local limits in the Library. This makes very interesting reading, expecially from the point of view of discrepancies between limits for neighbouring and apparently similar areas. Why, one may ask, should the ordinary board and lodging limit for Salford be some £40 to £50 higher than the limits in nearby Manchester? In compiling the list, we were struck also by the scale of the further increases in limits that had already occurred since the main annual review at November 1983. The fact remains that any increase in a limit, whatever its cause, enables all proprietors in that area to raise charges for any residents on suplementary benefit by up to the same amount. We have seen this happening over the past year.
We have indeed also heard from a number of Members of both Houses about elderly people paying for residential care from their own hard-earned resources, who have been put in very real difficulty when proprietors increase charges in step with supplementary benefit limits, often far in excess of the rate of inflation. Many such people, providing for themselves and expecting their savings to cover their needs adequately for the rest of their lives, are now suddenly finding that their money is running out because of these rapidly increasing fees. Further evidence of this sort continues to become available. It is clear that despite the good intentions behind the November 1983 changes, the current limit system is prone to unreasonable and inflationary increases.
A new system cannot of course be introduced overnight. We identified the scale of the problem and announced our intention to act in September. We then issued proposals for consultation on major changes in the current system in November, and we expect the Social Security Advisory Committee's report on this in January. We shall pay very close attention to this; but we nevertheless hope, subject to this consultation process and Parliamentary approval, to implement new arrangements in April 1985. This will he rapid progress by any standards, but expenditure is growing rapidly.
The provisions will work as follows. The regulations relieve adjudication officers of their obligation to decide on local limits by reference to local charges, and they transfer responsibility for setting the limits directly to my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Social Services. He intends to use these powers to adopt the local limits in use when the proposed changes were first announced in September,
454
and to freeze them at that level until the Spring. We have already undertaken to ensure that those claimants who had an appeal or a request for a review outstanding on 5th September will not be penalised by the freeze, and the draft regulations have been widely drawn to allow for this.
Regulation 3(3) enables my right honourable friend to determine limits either generally or in respect of a particular case or class of cases, and to revise the limits as he considers necessary. Where such a decision on an appeal or a review is specific to the circumstances of the individual claimant, that higher limit would be applied only to the individual concerned. Where there has been an appeal or review concerning a resident at a specialist, high-care residential home, for example, we would only want to apply the new higher limit to any claimant at the same establishment to ensure that the needs of vulnerable elderly or disabled people are safeguarded under the temporary freeze.
If however there were a case where an appeal tribunal had criticised a particular local limit on general grounds—in other words, saying that accommodation was not to be found within the area at that price—we would have to consider allowing a higher limit for the area as a whole. The wide powers we have taken enable us to adopt whichever approach is most appropriate because we believe that such flexibility is necessary to ensure that no one suffers as the result of the freeze.
In addition to these "no detriment" provisions, the regulations also allow us to consider any exceptional cases where there is danger of serious hardship. There will be no risk of this for the significant majority of boarders. They are paying charges below the appropriate local limit and will therefore be quite unaffected by the changes. Others who are presently relying on the provisions allowing an increase in the local limit in certain circumstances or on attendance allowance to help them meet a high charge, will have had these amounts uprated in the normal way at the end of November. But if, exceptionally, an individual claimant or establishment gets into real difficulty, we shall want to look at that case sympathetically. As I have indicated, we are particularly concerned that no elderly or disabled person should have to move from a residential or nursing home as a result of the temporary freeze, and we should take special care over any case where this seemed to be a possibility.
I should stress that we expect such cases to be very few; but, for example, we have already begun following up the small number of elderly and disabled claimants who received 12 months' transitional protection at the time of the November 1983 changes to check on their present position, and we shall want to consider further help in any case where expiry of protection looks likely to pose real problems. I should perhaps say that the power to vary limits is not confined to variations upwards. If anyone submits evidence to us that the current limit is encouraging exploitation, we shall want to look carefully at that evidence.
Finally, I should like to mention briefly the other largely technical and entirely beneficial items included in these draft regulations. Regulations 2(2) and 2(4) make minor amendments consequent upon the introduction of severe disablement allowance, to

455
ensure that it, like non-contributory invalidity pension, is treated as a qualifying benefit for the supplementary benefit long-term scale—and that SDA is added to the list of benefits which, if they are received by a non-dependant in a household, means that no contribution for housing costs from that person is assumed in assessing the householder's supplementary benefit entitlement. Regulation 2(3) corrects an oversight in the up-rating regulations by up-rating the maximum amount by which a local limit can be increased in respect of a couple in special circumstances.
These regulations constitute a wholly responsible holding measure to contain expenditure until more far-reaching changes can be considered and implemented. They strike a balance between safeguarding public funds and making provision for exceptional cases. I beg to move.
Moved, That the draft regulations laid before the House on 22nd November be approved. [3rd Report from the Joint Committee.]—(Lord Glenarthur.)
4.25 p.m.
Baroness Jeger: My Lords, I can agree with at least one point in the Minister's speech: we welcome the changes affecting the disability allowance. However, these changes seem to indicate some inefficiency, in that this particular allowance has only very recently been introduced. It must he confusing for claimants to find that already the Government are having to bring forward amendments and tidy up these matters. This indicates the terrible muddle which is to be found in the whole area of social services at the present time.
I should like to ask the Minister one or two questions, if he will be so courteous—as he usually is—to answer them. I understand the theory behind freezing local limits but I am worried about the practicalities. I know that there is a wide range of costs between one area and another but also within each area there are varying standards. There may be a warm and comfortable residential home which charges more than a cold, miserable slum down the road or around the corner. That is certainly true in the Borough of Camden, which I know best. There, one might he comparing—if the comparison is made purely on geographical grounds—a pleasant place in Hampstead with a slum at the back of St. Pancras station. I hope that in fixing these local limits, officers will be instructed to have regard to the standards of each establishment and not only to the neighbourhood.
The noble Lord the Minister referred to an increase in costs. Anyone who is serious about social security must look at these figures very carefully. However, the Minister did not tell the House why expenditure has increased so steeply and so rapidly. Why are there more people in bed and breakfast accommodation? Why are more people living in hostels? I do not want to be out of order by going beyond the proper range of this debate; but I hope that some time the Minister will ask himself whether there is any parallel between this situation and the decrease in local government provision for the elderly and the sick; and whether there is some parallel with housing cuts which are making it more and more impossible for councils to deal with the families on their waiting lists and who are
456
the very people who so often finish up in such expensive and unsatisfactory accommodation.
This represents the biggest waste of money in the whole of government expenditure because there is nothing to show for it at the end—whereas if councils were allowed to get on with some building at least there would be homes for the future as well as for the present. Perhaps the Minister does not accept that there is some connection between the present situation and unemployment; but many of us are convinced that unemployment is at the heart of the matter—especially so far as young people are concerned.
How many people are involved? We do not want to know only about money. We want to know also how many people are affected. Is it the case that more money is being spent on proportionately more people, or is it being spent on proportionately fewer people? If the Minister is able to provide us with these figures and if he includes in them homeless families, then does a homeless family count as one unit, or are the members of the family counted individually so that we can have a fuller picture?
Certainly in London it is the homeless families, and not young people sunbathing on the beaches of King's Cross, which form the major part of the problem. They are homeless for all sorts of reasons. Sometimes they are homeless because they are genuinely looking for work. Sometimes there are older people who have been sent out of mental hospitals, and other vulnerable members of our society, who are supposed to be returned to what is called community care. Too often community care is the care of a landlady and bed-and-breakfast accommodation. Some of these landladies do very good work and provide a very real social service, but many of us would rather see that provision fall directly within the responsibility of local authorities.
What arrangements will the Minister be making, in consultation with the Department of the Environment, for inspection? There is no doubt that it is the landlords who are getting the money, not the claimants, and it is the landlords who should be penalised. How do we know that the Minister's department is getting value for money? I understand that his officers are supposed to contact local authorities if they have reason to suspect that there are fire hazards or health hazards in this sort of accommodation. I can tell the Minister what happens, although I am sure that he will have a more informed answer than I have. When the local authorities are contacted they have to say that owing to Government policy they have fewer environment officers, that they have a long list of old houses waiting to be inspected and that they are short of clerks to process the information and to put details through the machinery. We had a dreadful case recently in Camden, although the home was in Westminster, where a woman and two children were burned to death in a really disreputable place which, even had it been inspected, the landlord was not inclined to put right.
Unless there is some inspection on that side it is no use chasing young people around because they are on a sort of holiday on the south coast. The people I want to get at are those who are exploiting the claimants and, therefore, are exploiting the Minister and the

457
whole department. Until there is inspection we cannot do that, because we do not know what standards we are paying for. I have had complaints from people in one of these bed-and-breakfast homes—I shall send a note to the Minister about this—where the department pays for bed and breakfast but the landlord does not give any breakfast. He lets the tenants borrow a kettle to make a cup of tea, but the taxpayer is paying for what is supposed to be their breakfast. That is what I call exploitation, and I wish that the Government would pay more attention to that aspect.
I have one final point. Is there to be any change in the Government's attitude to furniture grants? Why do we not encourage more of these people to try to find unfurnished accommodation? I know that it is very difficult, and certainly it is not easy anywhere in the country. However, I do not see why we must have the present rule that applies if someone does find an unfurnished flat. A case recently came to my attention of a man who was told that the rules said he could only have the flat he had found if no suitable alternative furnished accommodation was available. How could he prove that there was not a furnished flat somewhere else and only then ask for help from the department for what would be a much higher rent than the rent of the little place he had found, which was empty and unfurnished? It is false economy and I believe that the advisory committee is looking into this. It would be in everyone's interest if such help could be given in suitable cases.
I should have liked to have gone further into what we regard as the root causes of the problem. I recognise that the Minister is trying to deal with the symptoms and not the causes, but often one does have to treat symptoms. We have no time for cheating: we totally condemn that. I am anxious—we are all anxious—that those on social security, the majority of whom are there through no fault of their own and whose numbers are increasing because of the Government's policies, should not be penalised. I hope that the Minister and his colleagues will spend more time in dealing with the underlying causes which lead to what is a disgraceful and very sad situation for many of our poorest people.
4.35 p.m.
Lord Banks: My Lords, I should like to join in thanking the noble Lord, Lord Glenarthur, for his clear exposition of the purpose and content of these regulations. As he explained, they are only an interim measure. We are to receive further proposals, and we have had an indication in the consultative document of what they will be. If I have understood the timetable aright, we shall be discussing those proposals in February.
I should like to make it clear at the outset that if there is abuse then we on these Benches want to eradicate it. If hoteliers and proprietors have been rooking the Department of Health and Social Security, we want to put a stop to it. If anyone is being feather-bedded by the social security system we want to end that. But we are not clear on how much the increasing cost to which the noble Lord has referred is due to abuse and how much is due to the economic policies
458
pursued by the Government, as the noble Baroness, Lady Jeger, suggested.
These regulations and the consultative document have all the appearance of panic measures. After all, it is only a year since alteration was made to the arrangements, as the noble Lord explained. The single local limit for board and lodging, plus the local discretion to go higher in certain cases, was withdrawn and replaced with the three categories, each linked to the highest reasonable charge in the locality. It is true, as the noble Lord said, that there has been an increase in the total cost, but certain questions have to be asked in that connection. For example, in 1983 did not the Social Security Advisory Committee report criticism that in some cases previous local limits had been set at unrealistically low levels? Is the increase in cost not due more to an increase in the number of claimants, principally unemployed, than to an increase in charges? Is it not reasonable to suppose that young unemployed people are more likely to leave home to look for work the longer they have been unemployed? Therefore, there is a build-up in the numbers involved in this particular benefit. Is it not true that youth unemployment has increased from 814,000 in October 1980 to 1,286,000 in October 1984?
I should like to ask the Minister this further question. Is it not correct that the increase in charges in 1983–84 was 8.4 per cent., the lowest figure for five years? That figure is certainly in excess of the rate of inflation, but it is not a figure that suggests that charges are out of control. One is bound to ask whether there is any need for panic measures and whether it would not have been perfectly satisfactory to leave this matter to be dealt with by the general reviews now being conducted by the department, which reviews deal with the question of benefits for young people and with supplementary benefit.
Under this order, a freeze is instituted from 5th September 1984. In the Department of Health and Social Security press notice of 5th September it is stated that any increase needed—and it does not say, "any increase given", it says, "any increase needed"—under the terms of the 1983 regulations after 5th September will be taken away when the order goes through. I should like to ask the Minister whether he thinks that that is just and reasonable. I should like to ask him also whether he thinks that all existing local rates are excessive and, if that is not so and all local rates are not excessive, will not a freeze inevitably penalise some?
Then there is the question of the elderly to which the noble Lord, Lord Glenarthur, referred and the fear that some elderly people may be moved out of their homes during the freeze or when the new proposals come into effect. As I understand it, long-term protection at existing levels of payment is guaranteed only if charges are considered reasonable. I want to press the Minister again on what he has said about the Government being most concerned to look at all cases where people may be moved from their homes. What will be the position if, because of increases in charges which are not permitted as a result either of the freeze now imposed or of the new regulations, a person cannot afford to remain in his or her present accommodation? Many elderly people have been advised to go into their accommodation by

459
community or hospital social workers. It would not seem to be right that they should now be moved.
Then there are cases where the limit for residential care has been fixed to accommodate homes for the elderly and does not meet the more substantial care required by the young physically handicapped. A total freeze on current limits would not allow temporary problems raised by that situation to be solved before next April or May. I should like to ask whether the Secretary of State will use his reserve powers to consider such cases favourably.
Under the order, and indeed under the new regulations if they follow the lines of those suggested in the consultative document, the fixing of limits will be transferred from the local adjudication officer to the Minister. This is another piece of the centralisation which is so beloved of the present Government. I think they have taken as their motto the slogan, "The gentleman in Whitehall knows best".
Then I have a question about residential care. Are not the Government dealing with the problem of residential care—which, of course, is involved in this order—in a piecemeal fashion? For example, there has been a consultative document on payments for residential care. What is the outcome of the responses to that? There has been a marked shift from local authority sponsorship to supplementary benefit. Is there not ground for concern about continuity of care if there is no local authority involvement? Is not a wider and more comprehensive review necessary in this field?
While we want to eradicate abuse, we are not happy about the effect of this order. We shall want to examine very critically and carefully the proposals for further change when they are finalised and brought before us.
4.44 p.m.
Lord Beaumont of Whitley: My Lords, today's regulations are part of a process which I think appears to a number of your Lordships to be deeply disturbing. In fact, the whole matter appears to be another example of the Government's tendency to take a sledgehammer in order to crack a rather small nut. That is a process which involves a great deal of danger to anyone or anything which happens to get in the way. I say "a tendency" since noble Lords will recall only too well that the whole of the nonsense which the Government, Parliament and the greater part of the urban administration of this country is plunged into as a result of the Government's determination to avoid the cheap, simple and obvious answers to the problems of local government overspending. This appears to be another exercise in the same area.
What we are discussing today may be only an order and only an interim measure but it is building up to a way of coping with what it is undoubtedly an abuse but coping with it by involving really the whole of the machinery of government, bringing the whole of the solution into the centre and increasing—not decreasing in any way—the amount of bureaucracy involved.
The problem really boils down to the scandal of the youths living on social security at the seaside. That is
460
a scandal which makes good headlines but which, as has been pointed out, is more a question of dishonest lodging-house keepers than anything else. It certainly must be dealt with. What seems quite intolerable is that it should be dealt with in such unnecessary haste, by-passing Parliament to a certain extent—to the extent, for instance, that we have already had: the freeze on these charges and now the regulations to allow the freeze actually to happen. It also puts a brake on mobility and it sets and is in danger of setting, according to the consultation document, unrealistic limits for the accommodation of families.
This is not the time for a debate on the consultation paper and I will not embark on it. However, I must take the opportunity to say that Church Action on Poverty, of which I have the honour to be an officer, will be among the very many bodies which will be deeply concerned if the limits on charges for accommodation have the effect that Shelter now predicts they will—that of a massive squeeze on families, coming from the proposed limits. Life is far too near the knuckle for such families as it is.
The Government would also do well to look at the effect of their proposals on mobility. What has happened to the philosophy of "Get on your bike"? Perhaps the truth is that the Government have finally come to terms with the fact that there are not any jobs anywhere. But certainly, in so far as there are and in so far as any will occur, job mobility is one of the things that we definitely want to encourage. The whole of this process through which we are going this afternoon does not help with that.
To return to this order in particular, we of course must welcome it in some sense since it may be said to some extent to "make an honest woman" of the Government, in that the Government have most improperly anticipated the passing of this order by imposing the freeze on these accommodation limits anyway.
But when we come back to the order itself, the fact is that with this, as with so much of what this Government do, their main recourse, as my noble friend said, is to centralise. A party which campaigned, and has campaigned for years, on freeing the people from government has produced more centralisation than any government for 35 years. This is another example. Their motto appears to be, "If there is a nut to crack, choose the biggest hammer you can find and give it to us. We are the only people". The Government ask, drunk with their own righteousness, "Who can wield the hammer of reform? Get out of my way, all you others, unless you want to get hurt".
It is our business to see that people do not get hurt, particularly that the weak and the defenceless do not get hurt. This order today is a fairly minor matter but the whole process of which it is a part is, as I said at the beginning of my speech, deeply disturbing. I hope your Lordships will not allow this matter to progress further in the direction that the Government want without challenging it extremely severely.
4.50 p.m.
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, I should perhaps say first to those noble Lords who have spoken that the regulations with which we are concerned today are part of a holding measure only. This is, I think, worth

461
stressing. Some, if not many, of the points raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Jeger, will be covered in the second stage of the action we are now looking at. As the noble Baroness will be aware, details of these proposals have already been submitted to the Social Security Advisory Committee for consultation. I can assure the noble Baroness and other noble Lords who have spoken that we shall certainly take note of the comments that it receives as part of our consultation procedure.
I should state immediately that, unlike the suggestion made by the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont of Whitley, there is no question at all of the freeze having been imposed illegally or in any other improper way in advance of the necessary regulations. When the scale of the recent increases in expenditure on board and lodging payments became apparent, as they did in the summer, we decided that we must give an early signal of our plans to bring about a firm control of the arrangements in force. That is what led to the Statement on 5th September. However, we could not introduce the temporary freeze immediately since the necessary regulations would of course require the approval of both Houses before they could be implemented.
We therefore made clear that the regulations would be introduced at an early opportunity after Parliament reassembled. We were anxious to avoid any last minute pressure by landlords and proprietors to push up local limits by increasing their charges in the intervening period. This would have quite defeated the object of the exercise. We made plain therefore that when we did take powers for Ministers to set the local limits, we would adopt those limits in force at the time of the 5th September announcement. I hope that that clarifies any impression to the contrary that the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont, may have gained.
I think that I should go on to say that, in the light of this intention, the chief adjudication officer concluded that there would be no purpose in proceeding with the normal full-scale annual review of local limits, usually timed to coincide with the general benefit up-rating, which took place on 26th November. However, pending the introduction of the regulations before us, it has remained open to individual adjudication officers to review local limits if particular local circumstances require it. This was made clear in the guidance issued to local officers in circular S39, a copy of which is available in the Library. The arrangements were also explained to the Social Security Advisory Committee, which decided to waive consultation on the interim measures and await the proposals for longer-term change. I hope that that explains that particular point.
I revert now to some of the other points that have been made. The noble Baroness, Lady Jeger, spoke about the variation of standards which explain the existing variations in limit. Yes, there is a variation of standards. I am sure that some of the examples that she gave do indeed take place. I should explain, however, that the draft regulations will freeze the existing limits at their current levels and we shall not expect local offices to revise their limits. As to the general standards of variation throughout the country, yes, certainly, those that "rip off" people, so to speak,
462
by putting them in appalling accommodation—for example, not supplying them with breakfast when they should be supplied with breakfast, as the noble Baroness explained—are to be deplored. One would like to find ways of sorting that out.
The noble Baroness asked particularly about inspection. She asked whether we were not concerned about taxpayers' money and the health and safety of claimants. We are concerned, obviously, about large sums of money spent on expensive, overcrowded and dangerous establishments with poor amenities. The steps that we propose on board and lodging payments will help curb this abuse and this exploitation by landlords and proprietors. However, the enforcement of accommodation standards is a matter for local authorities. Local authorities already have a duty to inspect periodically houses in multiple occupation. There is a wide range of powers available to them to tackle the problems that have been mentioned. For example, they can ensure proper standards and amenities; they can limit the number of occupants; they can take out a control order; and they can run buildings themselves to protect the health, safety and welfare of occupants. Hotels are also subject to control by local authorities in important aspects of safety and health and also fire precautions under various enactments.
As to any challenge to the DHSS to take particular action in cases of substandard accommodation and the question, "Why don't we?", I can say that, where there is cause for concern about standards at an establishment, supplementary benefit staff should report this to the responsible local authority department. This I have no doubt they will continue to do. As part of next year's board and lodging measures, we intend to take the opportunity to strengthen the existing instructions on reporting substandard conditions to those authorities. Our new instructions will require local office staff to monitor and to record referrals to local authorities and the eventual outcome. We hope that this will also prove effective in combating substandard facilities.
The noble Baroness asked about furniture grants. Single payments for furniture can be very large, as I have seen myself in some of the visits that I have made to local offices. I am sure that the noble Baroness realises that. The present rule on there being no suitable furnished accommodation before furniture grants are paid is intended to prevent abuse—and I am afraid that there is abuse. There have been similar rules for many years. The Government are awaiting a report on single payments for furniture by the Social Security Policy Inspectorate and advice from the Social Security Advisory Committee. And the whole area of single payments is being considered in the current review of supplementary benefit. It would be wrong to rush into premature changes until those reports are completed.
The noble Lord, Lord Banks, charged the Government with panic measures. The November 1983 changes, like our current proposals, were intended to introduce more effective controls on expenditure on board and lodging. It is now clear that expenditure was rising more rapidly before 1983 than we realised. But it is a mistake, I think, to blame the November 1983 changes for the increases in costs that

463
have occurred between December 1982 and 1983. It is because we recognise that the November 1983 changes failed to stem the increase in supplementary benefit expenditure that we have come forward with further proposals.
The noble Lord asked about figures for the November 1983 changes. There were two conflicting criticisms of the local limits system prior to November 1983. A local limit for all types of accommodation was too low to cope with the wide variety of accommodation paid for on a board and lodging basis. Secondly, and contradictorily, expenditure was getting out of control because of a discretionary power to meet charges in excess of local limits in special circumstances. To meet these criticisms, Ministers abolished the discretionary power and introduced the three categories of local limits to which I referred in moving the regulations. Local offices reviewed all limits at the end of 1983 on the basis of advice issued by the chief adjudication officer. This advice stressed that limits should be set by reference to the highest reasonable charge in the area concerned and only accommodation that was unusually expensive would be omitted. The November 1983 changes have not curbed rising expenditure or been the cost-neutral package which had been expected by my ministerial colleagues and the Social Security Advisory Committee. Considerable increases in limits—sometimes well over 50 per cent., as I described, in local limits—have resulted. There are wider ranges of limits across the country that are really most extraordinary and very difficult to explain, both in housing and in labour costs.
The changes in 1983 produced increases in average limits across the country. I could give the noble Lord all the figures, but I suspect that it might be best if I let him have the figures in writing in due course, if he would be happy with that. He asked why we should take action now and why we do not wait until the reviews are complete. But local limits did rise significantly in 1983, and that is why we had to make the changes that we have made. For example, 80 residential care limits have been further increased in 1984 by an average of £25 a week—not an insignificant sum. It would have been irresponsible to allow the trend to go on; and a trend it has certainly become. I think that trend is self-evident from the figures I was able to give the noble Lord when I spoke earlier.
As to the concern which he expressed and which I think others, too, might feel—that some individuals might be forced to move, particularly the elderly and those less able to look after themselves—I really have to revert to what I said in moving the regulations; that was, that in exceptional cases where an individual claimant or establishment gets into real difficulty we will have to look at that case sympathetically. There is no expectation that there should be many cases of this sort; but there will be some, perhaps, and if that is so we shall have to look very carefully at them. I can assure the noble Lord and others that these people are not forgotten. That is why we have set out the regulations in the way that we have.
The need for continuity in residential homes, to which the noble Lord referred, is a point which we
464
have considered, and a joint working party of DHSS officials and the local authority associations has been established to improve co-ordination in the area of residential care. Our aim is to encourage local authorities' help with determining suitability of accommodation for those supported by supplementary benefit.
On the more general political question of the young and mobility of labour throughout the country, which the noble Lord raised, I should like to say that I am aware of the recent comment in the press about this, but I can tell your Lordships that the children and young persons' review, which is examining the benefit position of young people, is due to report at the end of the year. It would be premature to react before we have that report with us, and so no final decisions have been taken at this stage.
The noble Lord, Lord Beaumont, suggested that to some extent the problem was one of dishonest landlords, but there is evidence of abuse by young people. Numbers of young claimants have increased the most rapidly of all, as I am sure he is aware. The number of boarders aged 25 and under rose by some 60 per cent.—from 23,000 to 37,000—between 1982 and 1983, and all the evidence is that the growth in numbers in this age group is continuing rapidly and disproportionately to all other claimants. There have been many reports of youngsters paying board and lodging charges of £60, £70, £80 a week, or more, and that is well in excess of what they could in fact earn in employment.
There have been some blatant attempts to gain extra benefit through claiming as a boarder—for example, families even swapping their teenage sons to maximise their benefit income—and there are many people who are disturbed that large amounts of supplementary benefit should be payable to young, immature people so as to entice them away from their families. I am quite sure that all your Lordships would agree that the family is the basis for so much, and that to allow the supplementary benefit regulations to achieve an undesirable end in that direction is most unsatisfactory.
The fact is that, as I started by explaining, we have now reached an interim point. We are consulting. The views that will be expressed will, no doubt, be many. The Social Security Advisory Committee are advising on it. But to have continued in this way, without control, would have been irresponsible.
Baroness Jeger: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, I would remind him that we asked him a lot of questions. Can he let us have the figures for homeless families, who are really such a large proportion of those in the bed and breakfast accommodation?
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, yes, of course. I shall do my best to find out, and let the noble Baroness know.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Charities Bill [H.L.]
5.5 p.m.
Viscount Colville of Culross: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time.

465
It is the result of the deliberations of a Select Committee of your Lordships' House which worked through most of last Session, but I think I shall offend none of my colleagues if I say that the credit is to be attributed to a very large measure to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Brightman, our chairman, whose hard work and hard thought are really responsible for what we have before us. To his name I would add that of our most assiduous committee clerk. If I may say so, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Brightman, could not have found a more appropriate or happier occasion on which to choose to make his maiden speech, and we much look forward to hearing him in a moment.
What had happened was that—I am sure your Lordships will remember this—over recent years there had been two Private Member's Bills involving my noble friends Lady Faithful, Lord Renton and Lord Maude of Stratford-upon-Avon, in a previous incarnation. After these Bills were submitted to the Select Committee, a great deal of written and oral evidence was received about them. It is printed in the big blue book for your Lordships to read. In the end, the Select Committee felt that it could not recommend that either Bill, as such, should proceed because there were great arguments which had arisen on certain aspects of each of them, but they addressed very substantial mischiefs which should be put right; and that is what this Bill tries to do. I hope, therefore, that it has now been reduced to a form which is uncontroversial in principle but in fact is practical to achieve the results that we want.
But it is a modest Bill, as befits a Private Member's Bill. It is not intended to be anything like a wholesale reform of charity law; that would be a job for Government, not for me. Upon reflection, I think that there may be something to be said for changing the Long Title of the Bill so as to make it certain that that is not the overall intention. There are various technical reasons for that. Nor is it any attempt to change the workings of the Charity Commission. We heard from them on two occasions at least, and they have been extremely helpful in relation to this Bill, because, commendably quick off the mark, they have published a pamphlet about it, which is already in circulation—I hope not too prematurely—for charity trustees to use.
I shall leave others to go into the details of what happened in the Select Committee—the process and reasoning—but of course there is a very full account of it in the report of the Select Committee, which is Paper 293-I, The three mischiefs that the Bill sets out to remedy are to be found in paragraph 79 of the smaller document. For me at least, the starting point is the fact that in many charities money is available for public purposes to fill needs which had been selected from one time to another as being requisite to be put right. The money came from private beneficence, but now it is wrong, I think, if some obstruction or fetter prevents it being put to a proper charitable public purpose. It is also wrong if there is no public accountability. It emerged, incidentally, from some of the evidence that, in relation to many of these funds, there has been information available about the funds or their value ever since the charity was first registered under the 1960 Act—probably about 20 years ago. No up-to-date information is available at all.
466
This is public money in another sense too because if there is income there is of course no tax payable, or if tax has been paid it is refunded. The Inland Revenue require accounts if that is going to happen; but of course no accounts would be publicly available through the channels of the Inland Revenue. All in all it seems that there is just no supervision at all of how efficiently or how properly the trustees are administering this public money. So with that very short introduction and in the hope that other Members of the Committee will fill in more of the details of our discussions, I should like to turn to the Bill because it is my job to take the House through the content of the clauses.
It must first be realised that the Bill is to be read as one with the main Act—the Charities Act 1960. So if any interpretation is required of the phrases used one looks to the text of the 1960 Act and the whole will be part of a single statutory code. Clause 1 deals with local charities for the relief of poverty. The first matter that appears in the text is that the Home Secretary is given power to require by regulations more detail in the accounts that the trustees have to lodge. Next, instead of sending accounts to the parish council—or I may say, as a result of having had a letter from the National Association of Local Councils it perhaps ought to say "as well as" sending it to them—and to the Commission, the accounts are to go to the appropriate local authority. Which local authority that will be has still to be decided and will take the form of a statutory instrument, because it is probable that the proper one would be the one responsible for social services and that, according to what part of the country you are in—and I do not want to get on to delicate ground in this respect—may be the county or the district council. Therefore, it may be better to look at this matter in rather more detail through regulations which of course could be changed unlike the Bill itself. At any rate the accounts are to go to the proper local authority where they will be available for public inspection. The trustees have to give notice where the accounts can be inspected; and also unless and until they have lodged the accounts with the local authority they must make a copy (on repayment) for anyone who wants to see them.
The final sanction on the publication of accounts would lie in the fact that power is now being given to anyone to complain to the commissioners if accounts are not published. Section 18 of the 1960 Act gives the commissioners very wide powers; but at present the procedure is complicated and there is a limit on who can apply—an ordinary member of the public cannot apply. So Clause 1(6) gives the commissioners a free hand, with less formality and on application by anyone, to exercise their powers under that section. For instance, they can establish a scheme for the administration of the charity; they can remove the trustees; and they can deal with any problems relating to property or to money payments. Even if the commissioners do not often use that power—and I do not envisage that they would do so—it is hoped that its existence will underpin the other requirements in the Bill that figures should be published which really mean something, and that they should appear on a regular basis.

467
The next problem arises out of the objects that were originally laid down for a charity and which may have become very out of date. Here the Bill deals again in Clause 2 with local charities for the relief of poverty. Some of them are very ancient. But even if they are not so old the objects as originally set out may have become obsolete. However, the important point is that the evidence showed us that, despite the existence of the welfare state, the opportunity to put money to good use is still very present—perhaps even more so at a time of economic constraint.
I was very struck with the evidence of the Family Welfare Association when they came to the Select Committee. In 1982–1983 they gave £80,000 to the poor, having taken over the administration of a large number of charities. They said that they could, with the greatest of ease, have given away from between £800,000 and £1 million annually, to meet what they called "desperate needs". Those needs are exemplified in the stouter of the two blue books on page 229. There was also evidence that the same applies in Wales and in Northamptonshire, to give two other examples that can be found in the evidence. The Charity Commissioners themselves confirmed this view earlier on in the evidence that they gave at Question 49.
Yet the trust may be so drawn that such contemporary needs cannot be met or usefully met. I have only picked out a few examples. There is a Humberside charity formed as recently as 1910 which provides an income of £3 a year to provide oranges for school-children. There is another one for the provision for 16 loaves in the market-place at Michaelmas for the poor. There is another to provide financial assistance to the first sons of miners in the parish entering the Anglican ministry. The right reverend Prelate no doubt would applaud that with his Kentish coalfield constituency; but it may not be perhaps the most relevant way in which to help all the poor at the present time.
So looking at those type of charities and bearing in mind the doctrine of cy près, which means as near as practicable, it is really not possible to allow free and ready change in the objects which will meet an up-to-date need. For the reasons given in the report, the Select Committee thought it better not to attempt to tinker with the doctrine of cy près, and so there is another approach in Clause 2 which is to allow a discretion in the trustees themselves to change the objects. Fifty years or more after the charity's foundation the trustees can say that the objects are obsolete or useless or unachievable for reasons such as social or economic changes over the period concerned, and that an alternative would allow better use consistent with the the spirit of the original gift.
Clause 2(3) sets out the extent to which change in the objects can be made, and there are other safeguards. One has to consult the founder of the charity if he is still alive (and that will perhaps not be very often in view of the period, but if he is still alive then so be it). There has to be a unanimous resolution, and they have to give their opinion on the modified objects; there has to be publicity, if that would be useful; and there has to be a copy of the change sent to the commissioners and to the local authority. The
468
Charity Commissioners have three months in which to consider this, including any representations that may be made. They can ask for an extra six months in addition to that, but they cannot take more than nine months in all.
However, in order to put the minimum of burden on to the Charity Commissioners, this clause provides that the trustees' opinion that the new objects are apposite is, prima facie, to be considered as well-grounded, and by that means we hope that the number of times that the Charity Commission will have to expend a great deal of trouble on one of these cases will be greatly reduced. If and when they concur, the objects will stand as so modified. But they need not of course concur—they have a complete choice. I may say that there have been many cases in the past where even under the more cumbersome method of making schemes they have concurred in the changing of objects, so it is nothing new.
The next problem relates to the ineffectiveness and size of the charity. Under Clause 3 an exactly similar procedure to that which I have just been describing about the change of objects is introduced for another purpose—the amalgamation this time of any registered charity, provided that its income in the last accounting period was £200 or less. It must be amalgamated with another charity. That other charity must be willing to take over the property and must have objects which are similar enough to adhere reasonably to the donor's intentions or the spirit of the gift. The modification of the procedure, as against that to be found in Clause 2, is only very small. The local authority only has to be notified if the charity transferring its property is a local one for the relief of poverty. If it is not that sort, there is no need to inform the local authority.
This is in fact a simplified form of scheme-making (which I have just mentioned) for small charities. It keeps the money available for charitable use, and this is a principle that has underlain a great deal of the evidence which the Select Committee received; and, again, it should not cause any more trouble to the commissioners than the scheme under Clause 2.
I should like to raise one small point on it. The question was raised whether the Bill itself should take power to vest any property that was being transferred under these provisions; but for conveyancing reasons, it was thought better to leave this to an order under the Charity Commissioners so that there would be a proper record in time to come, and not leave it simply to the Bill. As for the monetary limit, I have received a number of representations about these monetary limits and of course under Clause 3 it is possible for the Home Secretary to increase by regulation the income level of charities which can avail themselves of this machinery over and above the rate of inflation. I suspect that that is something which will only be done when the system has been tested to see whether or not it is a success. But to those who say that the limit should he increased, I would point out that under Clause 3 the power is there to he used at a suitable time.
The other provision to deal with small charities which may be ineffective occurs in Clause 4, and this again applies to any charity with a permanent

469
endowment valued at £25 or less, not being land, and with an income of £5 or less. There is an enormous number of such charities; noble Lords would be surprised if they had heard or read the evidence about that. In this case the trustees may resolve to free themselves of the restriction on spending the capital as income. Again, they must be unanimous; they must notify the commission, but in this case the commission has no power to prevent it; it is simply a matter of record—they must put the file right and note that that is what has happened: the possibility is that the charity will cease to exist.
Under Clause 5(2) the financial limit can only be increased to take account of inflation. This is intentional because, again, there was a great deal of evidence and discussion about whether it is proper for money which has been set aside for charitable purposes to disappear altogether in the course of spending on some project. Therefore, the Select Committee was quite deliberate in keeping the size of charities which could do this to a very small figure indeed.
Clause 6 is the interpretation clause. In the schedules, which are quite important, there are some draft forms for trustees to use. The schedules apply respectively to Clauses 2, 3 and 4. They need not be followed exactly, but they are meant to be simple forms to fill in which will encourage the trustees to use these do-it-yourself provisions without resort to high-powered advisers in the legal or accountancy professions, because we hope that the schedules are clear and easy enough to fill in without any such assistance.
In summary, the Bill tries to pick up the best of both the two previous Bills. It entirely avoids compulsion on amalgamations of charities, which previously was a very controversial issue. It avoids any substantial costs falling upon local authorities, which was another controversial point; it minimises any loss of endowment funds from charitable use: it has very small implications for the workload of the Charity Commissioners; and indeed it ought to help to fulfil some of their duties, such as the question of insisting upon accountability, on which, sadly, they fail very greatly at the moment. In addition—and this is a very important point for any Private Member's Bill—the Bill has no resource implications. Yet the amount of' money—public money—which could be put to better use seems substantial. For instance, there was £60,000 in unused accumulations of parochial charity funds for the relief of poverty on Humberside alone. It is anyone's guess what the total over England and Wales might be. I do not propose to make such a guess about the figure. But even so, without it I would hope that your Lordships will agree that this Bill represents a useful, if comparatively modest, reform but one which is full of common sense. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a second time.—(Viscount Colville of Culross.)
5.27 p.m.
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, in the course of the very lucid introduction of this Bill—a lucidity which we have come to expect from the noble Viscount—the noble Viscount said that it was a Private Member's Bill
470
and that in the circumstances it was not appropriate to talk about the larger implications of the law of charity. The noble Viscount was quite correct in making that observation, but, as I cannot resist the temptation, perhaps I may be excused for saying that I hope this will not be made the excuse for not looking again (as it is so necessary that one should and that the Government should) at the shortcomings of the present law of charity and the implications which charities have in our modern social life.
It is a fact that our law of charity goes back to the days of good Queen Elizabeth I, the Act being dated 1601. Lawyers still have to invoke that statute, helped, as they are, by the very memorable categories that the greatly esteemed Lord MacNaghtan put upon them: the advancement of religion, the advancement of' education, the relief of poverty and, the fourth category, a general benefit to the community not falling within the other three categories. That has lead to a very narrow interpretation of what is a charity. Political implications have been ruled out in spite of the fact that political propaganda of some kind or other is very often necessary to advance the very cause of the charity that one is having to examine.
Therefore, as my very first point, when welcoming this small Bill now before us (as in general terms I do from these Benches, bearing in mind that I speak as an individual, as one always does on a Private Member's Bill) I enter a plea for a general look—be it by Royal Commission or otherwise—at our general law of charity and the need to have it brought up to date. If one needed a reminder, one had it in yesterday's Sunday Times where, in the course of an article headed "Getting the giving habit", the writer of the article, Mr. Michael Brophy, said:
"I suggest that a look at charities and their financial position is long overdue.
"Charities are big business. Charity Statistics show that in 1980 their annual income was £7 billion. That is equivalent to 14 per cent. of all public expenditure on health, personal social services, housing, social security, education and the arts. There are also many of them: the Charity Commission, which officially registers all charities, has nearly 150,000 on its records, with about 40 new organisations approved every week".
May I turn to the Bill before us? It finds its birth in the parenthood which was given to two Bills which were considered in the course of discussions in your Lordships' House. I do not suppose that the parent of either of them, if I may say so, is necessarily happy with the present child that has emerged, but that does not mean that one should not pay tribute at all events to the act of conception, even if the issue is not quite what the conceiving parents had in mind.
Your Lordships will remember so well that we had in our debates the provisions of the Small Charities Bill brought before us. We considered them in our general discussion of another Bill in which the noble Baroness, Lady Faithfull, brought before us the most powerful arguments for the Bill for which she was responsible, the Parochial Charities (Neighbourhood Trusts) Bill
We were in a dilemma because the Government, as we understood, it—the Home Office—were giving their support to the Small Charities Bill sponsored in another place by an honourable Member who has in fact had public esteem for many years and who is now most welcome in your Lordships' House: Sir Angus

471
Maude as he was then, and now Lord Maude, who has taken on the cloak of Shakespeare himself by having as his title Lord Maude of Stratford-upon-Avon.
One saw that there was a problem about that Bill. That Bill had as its object the turning of what were supposed to be perpetual endowments for small charities into non-perpetual endowments giving the trustees the power to spend capital even though that power had not been given, or intended, by the original settlor. That meant the extinction of these small charities. Some of us were worried, not least by the fact that this was not the intention of settlors, and settlors might be discouraged from creating charitable settlements if it was found that their wishes were by statute ignored.
Then came the Bill of the noble Baroness, Lady Faithfull. She is so well liked in this House that almost automatically we found ourselves liking her Bill, but that did not mean that we did not have some concern about it. There was concern because under that Bill local authorities could—and, indeed, they were requested so to do—compulsorily see that certain small charities were amalgamated into neighbourhood trusts. In this day and age, when local authorities are complaining that they have not enough money and personnel to carry out their existing important objects, one wondered whether this was likely to be a power that they either wanted or could in fact carry through.
The other aspect that made us a little doubtful was the compulsory element in it, which hardly encourages charitable trustees to perform the duties which they do as a great public service and usually in a voluntary capacity. Therefore, we did a sensible thing. We said, "We are in a dilemma: let a Select Committee of this House try to sort it out". The Select Committee, or somebody, did a further sensible thing by appointing the noble and learned Lord, Lord Brightman, as its chairman.
The noble Viscount paid him a tribute, and may I from these Benches say that I, too, pay him and all the members of the committee a tribute for putting before us a fine report accompanied by a draft Bill, and accompanied by forms which are going to be of great use to the people involved. Belonging to the profession that I do, possibly I do not necessarily welcome Bills which seem to draw for the layman everything that the lawyer thinks is possibly his entitlement to draw or advise upon: but, seriously it is most valuable, especially for small charities.
I am nervous about one thing, and that is that we should believe that the provisions of this Bill necessarily cover one of the greatest lapses that we have allowed of necessity in regard to these small charities. The lapse which is brought out in evidence is that so many of them have not registered; so many of them have gone to sleep; so many of them return no accounts to anybody at all. I am really saying to the House, "Please do not let us think that the provisions of this Bill have covered these inadequacies because these provisions apply to those small charities which will be known by local authorities, so that indeed if they do not render the accounts the local authority, or the Charity Commissioners, can chase them and say, "Please may we have the accounts?", or indeed get even stronger in their attitude than that.
472
The real problem here is that we have not reached the many charities—one suspects there are thousands of them throughout the land—that really nobody knows anything about. Since it is difficult in a statute to provide for them, I would hope that there will be a substantial propaganda campaign by the Government, or by a properly financed body of charity commissioners, to see that all local charities, where they may exist are at least told in our national newspapers, or by such advertisements as can appear by posters, to please see to it that they have communication with, and that certainly they have an obligation to send accounts to, the authorities set forth in this Bill.
There are so many who are taking part in this debate—and noble Lords will all have a particular contribution to make—that for me from these Benches to try to cover all aspects and all arguments would be a selfish act in regard both to the time that I should take and to the contributions that those Members of your Lordships' House have to make, and I am sure that they will be very worthy contributions. I therefore want to close merely by saying that I think that this is a sensible compromise between the two Bills, which were conflicting. It is a sensible Bill in many ways. There are duties which are going to be cast upon the Charity Commissioners which they do not have at the moment, and upon local authorities, which have to be recognised as additional duties upon overburdened bodies. The practical aspects of that have to be faced. They should be faced, and they must be faced, but generally this is a good Bill.
5.40 p.m.
Lord Brightman: My Lords, I wonder whether the House might find it useful if I seek to sketch the reasoning which lies behind the recommendations of the committee which I had the honour to chair. Ample evidence emerged to convince it that there were many charities within the order of reference of the committee which were not effective, and the committee identified the causes of this ineffectiveness as threefold. First, a woeful lack of accountability on the part of charity trustees. Secondly, the difficulties and complications in the way of updating obsolete charitable trusts. Thirdly, an ineffectiveness flowing from the sheer smallness of the funds at the disposition of the trustees. It was the task of the committee to search for an acceptable solution for those problems.
It became central to the committee's thinking that any solution to be acceptable had to comply with three requirements. First, the solution must be a simple one, easy for the trustees to understand. Secondly, it must be a solution which made no appreciable demands on central government or local government in terms of money or manpower. Thirdly, except only in the sphere of accountability, it must be a solution which was voluntary, in line with the voluntary nature of charitable giving.
May I turn first to the question of accountability which is sought to be tackled by Clause 1 of the Bill, and may I invite your Lordships to read paragraph 87 of the report of the committee which is the essential background to what we seek to do in Clause 1 of the Bill? If I may quote, paragraph 87 points out that:
"there is no immediate incentive for trustees of parochial and local charities to try to perform well. In the case of a private trust there

473
will almost always be specific beneficiaries to whom, or to whose parents or guardians, the trustees are accountable and who are likely to take action if the trustees fall down on the job. In the case of a charitable trust, by contrast, the trustees are operating largely on their own, without any effective accountability save in exceptional cases. The result is that inactivity or incompetence is likely to go undetected and unchecked".
The principle behind Clause 1 of the Bill increasing the accountability of local charities for the poor is that a charitable foundation exists in the public domain. It is not a private matter, not a private concern, either of the trustees of the charity or indeed of the parish. Therefore, accounts have to he made informative and they must be open for all to see. Not only local authorities but also local residents and local charitable organisations must be able—and indeed must be encouraged—to concern themselves with charities for the poor which exist in their locality.
Clauses 2 and 3, as your Lordships have been told, deal with the updating of obsolete trusts and with amalgamations among small charities. The principle of Clauses 2 and 3 is that trustees of local charities and trustees of small charities should be placed in a position where they can put their own houses in order. Under Clause 2, the trustees of local charities for the poor are to be able, by means of a simple resolution, to bring their trusts, if obsolete, up to date, and they turn to Schedule 1 for the form of the resolution. Under Clause 3, trustees of a small charity may amalgamate with a more viable charity, again by means of a simple resolution. The trustees turn to Schedule 2 to see the form of the resolution.
These are very wide discretions given to trustees, and the committee considered that it was imperative that there should be adequate safeguards to prevent those discretions being misused. Six safeguards are built into the Bill. First, there is a waiting period, which is likely to be about three months, before the trustees can put the resolutions into effect. Secondly, the trustees have to be unanimous. The majority cannot dictate to the minority. Thirdly, the new purposes have to be such that they are compatible with the original purposes and do not violate the spirit of the original gift; and the trustees are required to express their opinion that that is so in the form of the resolutions. Fourthly, there must he public notice given of the change. Fifthly, the resolution must he sent to the Charity Commissioners with a statement of the reasons and also to the local authority in the case of a charity for the relief of poor in a parish or other locality. Lastly, the trustees are not able to act on the resolution until the Charity Commissioners have signified their concurrence.
Whether we have the right safeguards in the Bill is an important question. In a way it is a balancing act between simplicity for the trustees on the one hand and not overburdening the Charity Commissioners with too many duties on the other. I hope that the Committee has that balance about right.
The only other point that I ought to mention is the question of resource implications for local authorities. Those resource implications are negligible as the Bill stands. Under Clause 1 the duty of a local authority is confined to receiving the accounts, to allowing inspection to any person who wishes to see them and to supplying copies on request and upon payment. All
474
the local authority has to do is to compile an index and possess a copying machine.
Under Clauses 2 and 3 the local authority has no mandatory duties. It has powers which it may exercise or not as it thinks fit. The Bill, as I think your Lordships have been told, is supported by the Charity Commission. Indeed, I think I am right in saying that it is welcomed by the Charity Commission. I hope your Lordships may feel that the Bill makes a modest but worthwhile contribution to society in an important and sensitive area.
5.52 p.m.
Lord Airedale: My Lords, when I became a member of your Lordships' House just over 25 years ago it never occurred to me in my wildest dreams that the day would ever come when it would fall to me to congratulate a Law Lord upon his maiden speech. But having served under the chairmanship of the noble and learned Lord, not only upon this committee but on the Joint Committee on Consolidation Bills, I offer my congratulations to him not only with humility but with the greatest enthusiasm. I think it has taken him just over two years to come to his maiden speech. We very much hope that it will not be another two years before we hear from him again.
Much has been said already about this Bill. I have only one point to make, and I shall not detain your Lordships for more than a very few minutes. The transfer of one charity to another will mean a loss of identity, and it may mean a loss of a piece of local history. Many charities were founded in honour of some well-known local person who was held in very high regard. The committee were told by one of the witnesses that what inspired the founders of charities sometimes was the desire to perpetuate the memory of a particular person whom they admired: the desire to perpetuate his memory for ever, they hoped, being almost more than the desire to accomplish the good works that the charity was to perform.
It will sometimes be possible to preserve the name of the transferor charity by incorporating it into the name of the transferee, but sometimes this will be difficult because it will lead to a cumbersome new title. However, I hope that the Charity Commissioners, whose task will be to oversee these transfers, will themselves be instinctively anxious to do what they can to see that a piece of local history does not disappear. If Ministers and others were to echo these hopes in the course of this Bill through Parliament, I am sure that the Charity Commissioners would feel strengthened in their desire to do what they can to see that local history is kept alive.
5.55 p.m.
Lord Maude of Stratford-upon-Avon: My Lords, as has already been said, the Select Committee dealt with two Bills relating to charities, one of which was the Bill that came ultimately to your Lordships' House as the Small Charities Bill and was taken over by my noble friend Lord Renton.
It took me 28 years of solid balloting to draw a place in the list for Private Member's Bills in another place. I confess that when I managed to carry it through all its stages in another place in the last Session of my last

475
Parliament, such is the vanity of politicians that I was puffed up with the hope that I might go out in a blaze of glory leaving a Maude Act on the statute book as a permanent memento to my parliamentary career there. But your Lordships, in your wisdom, decided differently. Swallowing my natural disappointment, I hope that I am able to approach the present measure dispassionately and with generosity.
Not only my Bill but that of my noble friend Lady Faithfull were fed together into a kind of legislative mixer which, like the mills of God, ground very slowly but came up in the end with what I think we can all agree is a valuable and worthwhile measure. I fully appreciate what the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, said about the very important matters with which this Bill does not deal. What my noble friend who moved the Second Reading said is essentially true and very important for us to realise; it is that there is no hope in the world that any Private Member's Bill which attempted to deal with the whole field of charities law and of reorganisation of the Charity Commission could possibly get through the other place during the Private Member's Bill time in one Session of Parliament. Nor do I believe that it would be a proper subject for a Private Member's Bill. This is something which the Government must do. It would be the greatest pity if what is valuable and important in this present measure were to be prejudiced by any attempts to widen the scope of this Bill. I hope very much that my noble friend will follow his suggestion of tightening up the Long Title to ensure that we can keep within the bounds of what the committee set out to achieve and what they have put into this Bill.
There is no doubt whatever, as the committee find, that there are a great many small charities in this country which have become ineffective, not always because the resources are not there but often because they have been ill-managed or because the trustees have lost interest or simply do not understand what they could do to improve the effectiveness of their charity. There is, as has been said, a great deal of money lying about which might be much better used. I entirely agree with the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, that a great deal of publicity ought to be given to try to stir up public interest and the interest of the trustees to see how much more could be done to make effective use of the endowments and income.
I wish to refer to only two specific points in the Bill to which I might wish to return in Committee. The one which is the most important and which has been mentioned already refers to the financial limits. I do not find anything to disagree with in the financial limits in Clause 3—a gross income of £200 or less. This seems to me to be reasonable for that purpose. It is with the financial limits in Clause 4 that I am concerned, because Clause 4, to all intents and purposes, is the one that replaces my own Small Charities Bill. I recognise, of course, that the use which is likely to be made of Clause 4 will be considerably diminished by the provisions of Clause 3, because very many small charities which without the provision of Clause 3, might have wished to spend their capital and terminate their charity, may well be stimulated to take advantage of the opportunities under Clause 3; but there will still be some which will not.
476
I feel that the financial limits in Clause 4 are too low. My noble friend Lord Colville of Culross—and I know that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Brightman, and other members of the committee felt the same—took the view that there was a great deal of opposition to the idea that any charity, having once been established by a donor, should fail and be wound up completely. I was advised that there was no law or anything else which said that this was something immutable and could not happen. Obviously, there is a moral obligation to try to keep a charity in being as long as it can be effective. But even if there were some total bar in law or morality to the winding up of charities by disposal of their endowments, Clause 4 breaches that anyway because Clause 4 gives charities the power to spend their endowments if the endowment and the income is below a certain point. So the principle is breached in Clause 4, anyway: and since the principle is breached, I think that one is entitled to ask whether the figures are reasonable. As to the gross income of £5 or less, that, I think, is arguable; but what I am sure is that the value of the endowment at £25 or less is a figure that is too low.
One must assume—and I think that it is probably right that it will be assumed—that when the Bill mentions the value of the endowment we are talking not of nominal or par value in the case of securities but about estimated current market value, whether of securities or of whatever else. I would point out that it is possible for a charity's gross income to be less than £5 while the value of the endowment is considerably more than £25, because not all trustees have invested their money as cleverly or with due notice of changing opportunities for investment. I believe that while there may not be a case for increasing the £5 limit under Clause 4(1)(b), there is certainly a case for increasing the value of the endowment in Clause 4(1)(a) above the figure of £25 because—and this is important—before a charity can dispose of its assets it has to meet both these requirements, both in terms. If it had been "either/or", there might perhaps have been more to be said for it: but it is very restrictive indeed to make it meet both the endowment value of £25 and the income limit at £5 or less: and I think it would be worth pursuing that in Committee.
The only other point that I should like to raise—this is a comparatively minor one but it has caused me a little concern—is about the requirement for trustees to give public notice of what they are about to do. This is provided in Clause 1(4)(a), and the phrase appears throughout the Bill:
"give such public notice as they think reasonable and justified".
It appears again in Clause 2(6)(a):
"give such public notice that they have done so as they think reasonable and justified".
But in this case, in Clause 2, that is substantially cancelled by the last paragraph of subsection (6), which says:
"The trustees need not comply with paragraph (a) of this subsection if they consider that, in all the circumstances, no useful purpose would be served by giving public notice of the resolution".
Exactly the same appears in Clause 3(5), where they are told to
"give such public notice … as they think reasonable and justified";
and then are immediately told that they need not comply with that if they do not want to or consider that it would not be useful.

477
I think there is a contradiction here; but I am not sure that they ought to be allowed to take these steps without giving some public notice of what they intend to do or have done, even if it be only, in the case of a small local charity, a notice on the parish notice board. I think the reasoning behind this was that, since they are under an obligation to notify both the Charity Commissioners and the appropriate local authority, notifying the appropriate local authority would bring it to the notice of all local people who might be concerned or interested. I do not think that this is necessarily so. Where you have, for example, a large county council or a large district council and this is a very small charity in one tiny village, it does not in the least follow that some councillor will in fact pick up what is going on by local word of mouth and inform his constituents. I see a certain amount of trouble, resentment and opposition being caused if local people discover that their own small, local charity is going to undergo some transformation about which they have never been informed. I think it would be sensible if, at least, we remove the waiver of the obligation to give public notice where it occurs in this Bill.
I am sorry to have taken up so much of your Lordships' time but, having been thwarted in my ambition to go further with my own Bill, I felt I was justified perhaps in spending a little time on the present one. I should like to conclude by thanking the noble and learned Lord, Lord Brightman, my noble friend Lord Colville of Culross and all the other members of the Select Committee for having done such a good job and for having brought this matter to a conclusion with which I hope we can all be satisfied.
6.10 p.m.
Lord Allen of Abbeydale: My Lords, it was a very great pleasure to listen this evening to the speech of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Brightman, as indeed it was to serve on the committee under his chairmanship. He kept us under very firm control and was very strict in seeing to it that we came up with positive proposals, as indeed we did. Altogether it was a fascinating experience and I think some of us ended by knowing rather more about such mysteries as ecclesiastical parishes and Welsh local government than we did at the beginning. I shall not keep the House for very long, as the provisions of the Bill and the reasons for them have already been explained with a clarity which could not be excelled, but there are one or two points I should like to make.
For one reason or another, I have been concerned off and on over the years with problems of charity law and administration, and what struck me with renewed force as our inquiry proceeded was that we knew so little about some of the basic facts. The Central Register of Charities, of which such high hopes were held when it was created by the 1960 Act, manages at the same time to be cumbersome, incomplete and out of date, for reasons which one can readily understand; and although we have the results of some of the county reviews and some very valuable pieces of research, the fact is that we just do not know with any exactitude what we are talking about in terms of sums when we discuss these local charities.
I think, though, that everyone does now agree that as a starting point it can be accepted that there are
478
quite a lot of charitable assets in existence which are not being put to the best advantage. Conscious though I was of the advantages of passing into law the Bill mentioned by the noble Lord who has just spoken, it always seemed to me a fatal objection to that Bill, which we know the Government at one stage favoured, that it would result in the loss for all time of sums which could still be made capable of effective use for charitable purposes. Incidentally, that Bill would also have had the effect of creating further havoc with the central register, as charities could simply have faded away without anyone at the centre knowing.
It seems to me that Clauses 3 and 4 of the Bill tackle this problem of the small charity in a much more effective way.
The question which has been raised by the noble Lord, Lord Maude of Stratford-upon-Avon, about the financial limits in Clause 4 no doubt can be pursued at Committee stage but since he has raised the point, I think it only right to say that in my view it would be wrong to go above the limits we have set out in the clause. He fairly takes the point that the clause itself breaches a principle, and it is no secret that there was some discussion on whether that clause should be included at all; but if one is to breach a principle, in my view, the breach should be kept as small as possible.
If we turn for a moment to Clauses 1 and 2, I am conscious of the fact that earlier on, I think on two occasions, I spoke in favour of the Parochial Charities Bill, a central feature of which was to import an element of compulsion. I felt then that so little had been achieved in this regard by voluntary effort under the 1960 Act that it was pretty doubtful whether much more would be achieved in the next 20 years or so unless we had on the statute book something with some teeth in it. But the evidence we received during our inquiry persuaded me that to go in for compulsion would arouse much controversy and much resentment, especially among the trustees who are conscientiously discharging their responsibilities, so much so that we might end up with a measure which created just as many problems as it solved, in the somewhat unlikely event that the measure would get through Parliament at all.
I came to the conclusion that the other possibilities which emerged in the course of our inquiry and which are now embodied in these clauses in the Bill offered a greater prospect of real progress, even though, as has been said more than once, that progress could be quite modest. I am therefore very much in favour of the Bill; but there are four points I should like to touch on very briefly. They are points where I feel a little concern; I was going to say "anxiety", but that would be putting it too high.
The first sounds a bit technical. It arises on Clause 2(2) and is rather more than a drafting point to be left to the Committee stage. Clause 2 itself very neatly bypasses the problem of cy-près, but I cannot help wondering just a little whether some lay trustees might he a shade puzzled, when they come to set out objects which are not too dissimilar to those of the original gift which of themselves become obsolete, to learn that these new objects must still be objects which are charitable in law—a test, the answer to which is not always entirely straightforward.

479
Secondly, I think one is bound to ask: is it right to limit the first two clauses to charities for the relief of poverty? There is the particular problem of the charity with a number of purposes, only one of which is the relief of poverty, which will find that different rules apply to the different parts. We were assured that difficulty could be surmounted.
However, going beyond that rather narrow point, there must be something of an argument that if we think that what we are suggesting in these clauses is good sense for charities for the relief of poverty, then it ought in logic to apply to other types of local charities as well. It is true that the Parochial Charities Bill, which comprised half our terms of reference, was similarly limited; and in paragraph 82 of our report we make a valiant attempt to justify such a limit on the merits, arguing that it is among those often old and largely obsolescent charities that the chief mischiefs lie. I suppose, too, that I should remind myself of the Churchillian adjuration to abstain from needless innovation, particularly when dictated by logic. Even so, I shall be interested to know whether the Government (if, as I hope, they are going to welcome the Bill) have it in mind to suggest any widening of the application of these two clauses.
My third point is whether the Charity Commissioners will be able to take on the extra duties that the Bill puts on them and which to my mind are perhaps a little greater than the noble Viscount suggested when he was introducing the Bill. They find it difficult enough in all conscience to discharge their present duties with the resources allocated to them. The Chief Charity Commissioner was examined closely on this point, but I think it would be right to ask the noble Baroness when she speaks whether she feels able to give us any reassurances on this point, and whether the Government are confident that these new duties can safely be taken on and properly discharged.
Finally, I should like to say a few words about investment. Some charities have done well; a great many have not. Some of them have not raised their rents. Some have simply left their capital in undated, fixed-interest gilts. Some think that, because their assets are now vested in the Official Custodian for Charities, they are relieved of the responsibilities of financial management. Altogether it is not a very happy story.
The other day I read an interesting article in the Investors Chronicle which argued that it was rather a pity that this opportunity was not being taken to revise the Trustee Investments Act. Notwithstanding the width of the Long Title (I go along with the noble Viscount in thinking that some alteration is called for there). I fear that such a proposal would fall well outside the scope of this legislation. But I believe that charities with sizeable funds—I think that the operation of this Bill should add to their number—would find it sensible to follow the advice of that article and appoint an investment adviser. The trouble is, I suppose, that not all trustees read the Investors Chronicle; come to think about it, they do not read Hansard either.
I noticed that in The Times today there was an article about charities in which the writer referred to the report of the Select Committee but seemed to be
480
completely unaware that we were just about to debate this Bill.
One of the problems on which the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, touched, and which the noble Lord, Lord Maude, took up as well, was the question, if the Bill is passed, of getting it widely known and understood. No doubt the National Council for Voluntary Organisations will play its part in giving publicity; no doubt the Charity Commission, which has already started, will also organise some publicity; but as has been pointed out, it is not in touch with all charities. I think there is a real problem here and I wonder whether the Government have any thoughts to offer in this particular context.
I am bound to confess that if I had been given a free choice of a place in the legislative programme for a Bill on charities (even a Private Member's Bill, with all its modest scope) I am not entirely sure that this particular topic would have come right at the top of my list. But certainly we have here a perfectly good opportunity to make worthwhile, if modest, progress, as the noble and learned Lord put it, in an area where progress is much needed.
There are a great many trustees who discharge their duties perfectly satisfactorily, and all credit is due to them. But the mischiefs we identified exist on too great a scale for comfort. There is still a very important role for voluntary charitable effort in our welfare state and the Bill will help a little to improve the discharge of that role. I hope that the House will give the Bill a Second Reading and, if I may go on, I hope that we shall be told that, if necessary, the Government may be able to find some time for it in another place.
6.25 p.m.
Lord Mancroft: My Lords, I, too, should like to join in congratulating my noble friend Lord Colville on the very clear and helpful way in which he has introduced this Bill to your Lordships' House. I should also like very warmly to congratulate the chairman of our committee on his maiden speech, and indeed on his chairmanship. I have only one complaint to make: he has spoilt the market. None of us will ever be able to take on the chairmanship of a committee again without looking anxiously over his shoulder to see whether the noble and learned Lord, Lord Brightman, would have approved or disapproved of the course he is suggesting should be taken by his colleagues. I hope it will not take all the time of another Private Member's Bill and another Select Committee before the noble and learned Lord gives us the benefit of another speech in this House in its legislative capacity. If that proves to be the case, I will utter an ugly threat. In the course of the 42 years in which I have had the honour to be a Member of your Lordships' House, I have sponsored no fewer than seven Private Member's Bills with varying degrees of luck and ill-luck. I still have two or three left in my filing cabinet. If the noble and learned Lord promises that he will speak again, I will keep them there; if not, he knows perfectly well where the threat lies.
The noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, touched on, and almost flirted with, the subject of the Charities Act 1960 and the possibility of amending it. My memory goes back to 1950 when the Nathan Committee was

481
appointed; to the discussions afterwards in which I took a part myself; and to the Bill which I think was piloted through another place by my noble friend Lord Renton, who followed me at the Home Office in the role of Under-Secretary (and both of us were kept in order by the noble Lord, Lord Allen of Abbeydale, who has just spoken). I must confess that I thought the same as the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon. The more I listened to the evidence that was put before us, the more worried I became about the obvious gaps in the 1960 Act.
I was also reinforced in that worry by the ten years in which I have served as a trustee of my regimental charity, because day after day—the committee met daily and worked daily—I came to realise how the development of the welfare state and the changes in our social conditions had brought about a complete change of what would have gone through the minds of Lord Nathan and his colleagues when they were working upon the draft of the 1960 Act. But of course we could not do that; first, it would have been completely outside our terms of reference as a Select Committee—we must never do that of course when the Whips are listening; and secondly, it would have been a Herculean task which we could not possibly have undertaken.
The noble Lord read to us from one of yesterday's papers and it happened by coincidence that there were two major articles in the press yesterday concerning the public reaction to this little Bill. The writers were concerned principally with major charities and not with the charities which we are discussing this afternoon. But they made that same point and I think it is worth considering.
The other point I should like to make, which was brought up in two speeches in the House this afternoon, concerns the attitude of the Charity Commissioners towards this small Bill. One of the letters in The Times directly after our Bill was published commented, I think a little unfairly, on the attitude of the Charity Commissioners and asked why they had not taken a more active part in supervising this problem. With the best will in the world, they could not. They could have done so of course if they had three times the number of staff and four times the number of computers. Impressed as I was with the evidence they gave us, I came to the conclusion they had done their level best with the facilities at their command and the time at their disposal. The Charity Commissioners take a certain amount of time and trouble over their work; the expression "helter-skelter" is not one that can be readily applied to the work of the Charity Commissioners. Therefore, we cannot blame them. They quite clearly showed that they are proposing to take a much more active part, if they possibly can, with the resources at their disposal. I was grateful to hear that.
What about the fate of this Bill? We shall listen eagerly to what the noble Baroness has to tell us. I hope very much that it will pass easily on to the statute book. There are various types of Private Member's Bills, as I am only too well aware. There is the Private Member's Bill that is really a Government Bill, given to a Back-Bencher or private Member for the sake of the timetable. There is the old warhorse of a Bill; a Bill
482
of the kind which noble Lords opposite on the Liberal Benches used to produce year after year—a Bill of Rights. They never expected to get it on to the statute book but took it out for a little airing once a year. Dear old Lord Merthyr, whom we all liked so well, used to produce a Bill at regular intervals to try to have the date of Easter fixed. He knew that he would never get it on to the statute book but he took it round time and time again.
There is then the Bill that is directed towards a specific ill, a specific injury, a specific mischief. The noble Viscount, Lord Massereene and Ferrard, who I am sorry to see is no longer in his place, produced such a Bill only two or three days ago for the improbable though proper cause of enabling one to marry one's mother-in-law. I am not making fun of that because I tried some years ago to introduce a Bill to make it possible for one to marry one's divorced wife's sister—not one's deceased wife's sister but divorced wife's sister. It is an Act. It took the noble Lord, Lord Maude—I think it was—25 years to get his Bill into action, and it took me 11 years to get my Bill on to the statute book. I therefore beg the noble Viscount, Lord Massereene and Ferrard, to be of good cheer.
My Bill had some awkward consequences which I hope this Bill of ours will not run into. Many people did not realise that one could not do what my Bill sought to achieve; to allow one to marry one's divorced wife's sister. Indeed, I had some pained correspondence with a lady living in Manchester, who told me she had been living for some 20 years with a husband whom she discovered she had never legally married. When she told him this, he (realising the marriage had not been happy) folded his copy of the Manchester Evening News, heaved a sigh of relief, and went to live with a barmaid in Bridlington.
The last type of Private Member's Bill is the kind we have before us today. I hope that the noble Baroness will be able to reassure us about this Bill. I was worried about the 25 years mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Maude. I could picture him standing—as so many of us do—by the luggage carousel in an airport. One makes a grab (or a small porter does) at one's luggage. One misses it or it falls to pieces in one's hand, and away it goes for 25 years, into the maw of the airport, never to be seen again.
I hope therefore that the noble Baroness will be able to give some reassurance that this Bill be more kindly treated than some of our Bills have been in another place. We treat their Bills very kindly always. I am sure that the noble Baroness, with all her power and charm (and, if she will allow me to, I ask her to forget about Bridlington), will be doing all she can to get this Bill on to the statute book, where it deserves to be.
6.33 p.m.
Lord Denning: My Lords I enjoin with all your Lordships in thanking my noble and learned friend Lord Brightman and the other members of the committee for the good work that they have done, and in congratulating my noble and learned friend on his maiden speech today. I may tell your Lordships that no one in this country knows more about charities than my noble and learned friend Lord Brightman; we could not have had a better person to chair the committee.

483
If I may say so, the proposals are excellent. I warmly support the Bill, but I would almost join with my noble friend Lord Allen in asking whether it has enough teeth to ensure that matters are put in order. The mischief is plain and it is spelt out in the report of the Select Committee. It is that 140,000 charities are registered with the Charity Commission but only 14,000 of them submit any accounts. Also, charity trustees are supposed to manage funds and invest them properly in order to ensure that they earn a proper income. Do they do that? No, my Lords, funds are left in the bank and no one reviews them or sees to it that any changes are made to the investments.
Lastly, what is to happen about trustees? Many of them fall dormant. Trustees die and nobody is appointed in their place. It happens that there is £60,000 left in a bank for a trust for which no trustees exist. In my own little town of Whitchurch there was a trust in favour of the freeholders of the Borough of Whitchurch. They disappeared and the corporation no longer existed. Who owned the property? We had to appoint our own trustees. Many trusts do not have proper or suitable trustees, or sufficient of them.
Looking through the report, one sees that this and that obligation is placed upon the trustees; that this or that power is given to them to apply, for instance, to extend the objects of the charity—the cy-près—if that matter is not properly dealt with; they must apply for permission for capital to be used; and they must apply also to transfer funds to another charity. All those powers are vested in the charity's trustees. Who are they? Are they all good and responsible trustees? The report assumes so and the Bill assumes so. Must not something be done to ensure that all charities have good and responsible trustees?
I should like the matter to be placed in the hands of the parish councils. I was president of the National Association of Parish Councils for some years. They did not have enough work to do. Could they not supervise parochial and other charities? They could do so without any fee or expense. I am sure that they would do this work voluntarily. There could be a solicitor, a banker, and some other representative. Why should not the charity trustees be properly constituted so as to perform the very important functions which this Bill will give them?
I am afraid that I do not find one word in the report as to the appointment of new trustees or the constitution of them. I should like to see some provision to ensure that trustees are fully representative of good and responsible people. I believe that they would all do this job voluntarily. Many people in our localities would do so; bankers and solicitors would voluntarily give their services if only we requested them to do so. The only request I would make—although it would of course have to be done in Committee—is for some consideration to be given to the appointment of trustees and to seeing that proper trustees are available for all the charities in the land, and that they will do their duty.
The only other point I would make concerns accounts. Clause 1 of the Bill lays down that the accounts are to be properly prepared in the prescribed form and delivered to the local authority, whichever it may be. But who is to enforce those provisions?
484
Subsection (5) states that any person may apply to the Charity Commissioners. All well and good—but will one be able to find a person who will do that, if the accounts are not proper? One must find a public-spirited person who will take an interest in the charity and will himself apply for the accounts to be properly regulated. Could not the responsibility be not only with the person but with the parish council, or whatever it may be, in order to see that accounts are properly prepared? These are only Committee points; but I should like to see this excellent report supplemented in some way, and given some teeth in the way that I have suggested.
6.40 p.m.
Lord Renton: My Lords, my noble friend Lord Mancroft has made a revelation to your Lordships which saves me from making a confession; namely, that I had the responsibility of piloting the Charities Act 1960 through its Committee and Report stages in another place. It was one of the most harassing experiences that I have ever had in a long and varied life. Strangely enough, that Act was regarded at the time as being controversial, not because people thought that it did not go far enough, but because, its critics said, it went too far by giving too much power to the Charity Commission over trustees, even though, as has been pointed out in several speeches this evening, it contains practically no powers of compulsion over them. Indeed, the Charity Commission has lacked the resources which would have enabled it to take the fullest opportunity of such power as is given to it by that Act. At the time that Act was considered progressive, almost adventurous. Now, however, its shortcomings are well known and have been referred to by most of those who have spoken in this debate. It was very far-reaching, so much so that the mere list of statutes that it repealed starting with, I think, the 1601 Act to which the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, referred, came to 12 or more pages.
Before I go any further, I should like to join in the congratulations to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Brightman. His speech was well worth waiting for, if I may say so. Like others, I hope that we shall not have to wait so long to hear him again. His committee, by its terms of reference, was necessarily confined to the scope of the two Bills introduced in July 1983—one by my noble friend Lady Faithfull and the other by myself, although I always regarded it as the Bill of Sir Angus Maude, which it truly was for reasons which your Lordships know. I should like to join in the rejoicing that he is now with us.
In my opinion the noble and learned Lord, Lord Brightman, and his committee in their difficult task managed to combine the virtues of both of those Bills with the vices of neither. In particular, I am glad that the Select Committee avoided recommending compulsion. Even now, after 24 years, I think that it is best to see how far we can get with voluntary action. If we had something more stringent, there would be no hope of this Bill getting through both Houses. In any event, I think that if we are to have all charitable trusts registered with the Charity Commission, put on a computer and with compulsion to provide information so that it can be properly analysed and so that we can detect the moribund trusts to see that their

485
endowments are better used, that would be a major task for the Government to undertake. I join with those in hoping that one day the Government will undertake it. Frankly, I do not think it will be the major task that the Nathan Committee, the Home Office and the Government undertook before the 1960 Act came on to the statute book. All that would be needed is some tightening of administration, coupled with some amendments to the 1960 Act; and funds will have to be provided.
My noble friend Lord Colville of Culross is ideally suited to pilot this Bill through the House because he is a Queen's Counsel, a former Home Office Minister and a member of the Select Committee. I hope that when he does so he will be so kind as to bear in mind, first, the point made by my noble friend Lord Maude of Stratford-upon-Avon in referring to the very small limit in Clause 4. It is quite absurd. I hope that we can get that amended in Committee. I do not think that that would jeopardise the Bill.
I refer also to Clause 3 because, unlike Clauses 1 and 2, it is not confined to local charities for the relief of poverty. Indeed, it is abundantly plain that it can refer to any registered charity as long as the conditions laid down in subsection (2) are followed; that is to say, £200 gross income is the limit.
In order to make the fullest use of the opportunity given by Clause 3, I suggest to your Lordships that what is needed is an effective method of identifying those small charities that the clause would cover so that the trustees of those charities can be approached by larger charities—I mention for example the Royal Society for the Mentally Handicapped, of which the noble Lord, Lord Allen of Abbeydale, is chairman and I am president. When the objectives of these small charities are not dissimilar from the larger charities which might approach them with a view to arranging a transfer of property within the power given in Clause 3, it would be a great pity if the opportunity were missed. I do not suggest that any amendment to the Bill would be needed to achieve the passing of information about these small charities. It merely needs a Ministerial statement that the Charity Commission will publish information about those small charities so that the clause could be used to devote all the resources of moribund charities for the benefit of living charities which are doing a good job. Some of those charities are of course very big but need more money. In wishing the Bill a safe passage through both Houses I should like to remind the business managers in another place that
"In faith and hope the world may disagree, But all mankind's concern is charity.".
6.49 p.m.
Lord Prys-Davies: My Lords, I shall always value the experience of serving on your Lordships' Select Committee, and I hasten to add my tremendous appreciation of the leadership that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Brightman, gave to the committee. At every stage the noble and learned Lord was decisive. Indeed, he was an inspiring chairman. We are also grateful to the noble Viscount, Lord Colville of Culross, for having introduced the Bill to the House and explained its provisions.
486
There is one point that I should like to make, and it is this, The problem is not new. The three principal problems identified by the committee are not different in nature, although possibly different in degree from those which have beset charities for over a century. One could quote from the reports of the Charity Commissioners in the 19th century complaining of difficulties which were being constantly experienced because of outdated objects or outdated purposes. Similarly, since the middle of the last century there have been complaints of inadequate accountability of charity trustees.
We know from the evidence of history, from the evidence brought before the committee, that the Charity Commissioners are there in the background, but the trustees do not stand in awe of them. Indeed, we have heard how some trustees have allowed their charities to become dormant and to be wiped off the map. Bearing in mind the recommendation made by the committee in order to improve accountability, we might do well to recall that the Charitable Trust Amendment Act 1855 imposed an obligation upon trustees of charities to submit accounts annually. But this obligation was ignored by two-thirds of the charities. That was partly due to the absence of a sanction or a penalty for failure to submit accounts.
The obligation to submit accounts was also cemented into the 1960 Act in order, hopefully, to provide a firm foundation on which to build accountability. But we have heard that nothing came of this, the obligation having been ignored by the majority of the parochial charities to which it applied. So one cannot be blind, deaf and dumb to this unsatisfactory state of affairs.
Unlike the noble Lord, Lord Mancroft, I am a little uneasy about the role of the Charity Commissioners. This is the second point which I wish to make. In their report for the year 1982, published a matter of a few months before the Select Committee was established, the Charity Commissioners appeared to be agreeing with a government statement of about 1980 that there was no need for changes in the law on charitable status or in the administrative practices relating to charities. Then they went on to reassure the reader that that did not preclude a reconsideration of the subject in the light of fresh evidence suggesting that changes are desirable. That is to be found in paragraph 15 of the report for 1982.
Within 18 months the fresh evidence became available in Volume 2 of the report of the Select Committee. I should have thought that it must be a matter of some anxiety that the evidence contained in Volume 2, or the nature of it, was apparently not known to the Commissioners in 1982. It is also worrying that this evidence in Volume 2 would not have been collected together and have seen the light of day had it not been for the perseverance of the individuals who sponsored the Parochial Charities (Neighbourhood Trusts) Bill and who sponsored the Small Charities Bill. We in this House are particularly indebted to the noble Baroness, Lady Faithfull, the noble Lord. Lord Renton, and the noble Lord, Lord Maude, for their lasting contribution. But anyone who reads Volume 2 of the committee's report will appreciate that there is considerable unease about the

487
commission as at present constituted, and with its current resources, making any sort of showing commensurate with the efforts which are required of it.
The proposals and the safeguards have been explained; I will not go over that ground again. But we should note that a quarter of a century ago the reformers looked to the Charity Commissioners and the local authorities to take the lead in bringing about the changes which were seen to be necessary. In this report we have not gone down that prescribed road. The proposals contained in the committee's report start with the trustees and the need to make it possible within limits for them to make the most effective use of the endowments available to them. One might well ask: is there a better place from which to start?
Having asked the question, one must, however, mention the caveat that has been spelled out by my noble friend Lord Mishcon, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Denning, and other Members of your Lordships' House. It is that this Bill, if it is passed, will be what the trustees make of it. Therefore, we must ask: are we asking too much of the ordinary trustees of a charity? Will they co-operate or will they be indifferent? In other words, are we asking trustees, in the words of the old-fashioned sermon, to change themselves? We just do not know enough about the attitude of mind of the average trustee to enable us to answer this question—although I think it is absolutely right that we should ask the question. Certainly this Bill, with its limited but still real powers, will open up possibilities which should be seized by trustees of afflicted charities. If they fail to do so, if they fail to grasp the opportunities, we shall be back to square one.
6.57 p.m.
Baroness Lane-Fox: My Lords, none of us who served on the Select Committee can be surprised by the admirable maiden speech by the noble and learned Lord. Lord Brightman. The Select Committee on Charities is the first Select Committee on which I have had the honour to serve, so I have no yardstick by which to measure. Certainly to observe the masterly skill, good humour and patience of the chairman was inspiring and unforgettable. Here I so agree with the last speaker. The report owes much to the brilliance of the noble and learned Lord and also to the sustained effort and expertise of the clerk, who had a mass of documents to unravel, collate and condense.
My noble friend Lord Colville of Culross, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Brightman, and other speakers have dealt with the main substance of the Bill. I want just to refer again to Clause 3(1) and Clause 4(1). Both give a kind of do-it-yourself power to trustees to pass a resolution regarding (a) the transfer of property worth £200 or less to another charity and (b) to free from any restrictions imposed by law expenditure of an endowment of £25 or less, or gross income of £5 per annum or less. My noble friend Lord Maude and my noble friend Lord Renton think these limits a little low. I should certainly say they were no passport to profligate expenditure. But they are sums which would be warmly welcomed by other charities struggling for funds.
488
Any of your Lordships who have my experience of trustee meetings in a rural locality will know only too well how time-consuming is the current requirement to consult a higher authority. At best, and by their own word, it takes six weeks to get a reply from the Charity Commissioners. There is then further correspondence, followed probably by the need for a journey to London from far away rural areas to give verbal clarification of a point at issue.
The Bill's proposed method streamlines this course to reduce these delays—delays that can exasperate the trustees. And we have heard what valuable people they are to keep on our side. Many rightly consider that they, at grass roots level, have a far clearer view of local requirements than the Charity Commissioners. In any case, a copy of such a resolution, which must have been unanimously carried, is to be forwarded to the commissioners and, in the case of transfer of property, forwarded also to the local authority. The Charity Commissioners will be asked to signify their approval or otherwise of the resolution within three months unless they state that they require further time to consider the case and then the time limit will be not more than six months. Such a period may not seem long to the Charity Commissioners, but to those with constructive plans awaiting a decision it is quite long enough.
Throughout the taking of evidence it was apparent that the Charity Commissioners have the reputation of being aware immediately of events and conditions in far flung hamlets and villages. Yet the extent of their existing establishment and their shortage of information technology renders this most unlikely. The Bill aims to recognise these deficiencies and, in the case of the small sums I have mentioned, to provide more realistic timetables to meet the present day scenario.
May I make a passing reference to a fact that repeatedly showed up throughout the hearings? That is the determination of trustees, voluntary bodies and organisations to protect the small charitable sums in their charge from compulsory schemes even where these would save both time and effort. Conscious of this bastion of defence of these tiny local nest-eggs, the chairman and my distinguished colleagues on the Select Committee have sought to respect this very responsible stance yet to give a gentle reminder that the needs of the 1980s call for a slightly more flexible attitude to bring to life these useful and oft-forgotten funds. For many more reasons than I have described, it is my hope that the Bill will be welcomed in this House and in another place.
7.2 p.m.
Baroness Faithfull: My Lords, if the noble Lord, Lord Airedale, was astonished to find himself after 25 years being the one first to congratulate a noble Law Lord, it never occurred to me in a thousand years that I would be a member of a triumvirate who would supply a subject on which a notable Law Lord could make his maiden speech. I am proud, with my noble friends, to have achieved that. With much diffidence, I congratulate the noble and learned Lord. Lord Brightman. May I also thank the noble Viscount, Lord

489
Colville, for introducing this Bill—this modest Bill, as the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, called it. I believe that it is modest, but valuable.
I am sure that the noble Lords, Lord Renton and Lord Maude, hear the Select Committee no ill will for the fact that it has not produced exactly the Bill which they brought before the House. I also bear no ill will, but I would not be human or indeed honest if I did not express a tinge of regret that some of the recommendations made in the Parochial Charities (Neighbourhood Trusts) Bill have not been incorporated in the Bill before your Lordships today.
The Parochial Charities Bill—I shall confine my remarks to that Bill—made it mandatory for parochial charities for the relief of the poor to amalgamate, not transfer, across parish boundaries to meet the needs of new parishes, many consisting of new estates. This amalgamation was to take place with old parishes having parochial charities bringing in an annual income but no poor or needy in the parish. As the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of London said of parochial charities in the debate on 6th May 1983:
"It is often forgotten … that they belong not to the parishes but to the poor and needy"—[Official Report, 6/5/83; col. 287.]
The reason why the promoters of the Parochial Charities Bill recommended mandatory amalgamations was due to the historical fact that the Nathan Committee of 1952 which, as the noble Lord, Lord Renton said, led to the Charities Act 1960, gave permissive powers to trustees to form neighbourhood trusts. The recommendation was subsequently endorsed by both a Select Committee of the House of Commons and the Goodman Report. Suffice it to say, that from 1960 to 1983 only a few trusts availed themselves of the permissive power.
Having read the evidence given to the committee of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Brightman, I appreciate that feelings ran high over the mandatory clause. As I believe that the views, opinions and feelings of people should be heard and as in this country at present, in some sectors of public life, we have dissension, disagreement and frustration, I fully appreciate the line taken by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Brightman, and his committee in deleting the mandatory clause.
I am still not clear why the committee recommended transfer of funds from one parochial charity to another, rather than amalgamation. A Mr. Hellin wrote to me suggesting that the trustees of small parish charities might be more reluctant to be taken over by other charities, by comparison with the formation of a totally new body. I wonder whether the noble and learned Lord, Lord Brightman, will forgive me if I quote his reply to me concerning that letter. The noble and learned Lord says:
"Such an arrangement could readily he carried into effect under the Bill as it stands. To take a simple case, suppose that there are in a parish three charities for the poor; suppose that there is general consensus in favour of the formation of a totally new body to take over and administer the funds of these three charities, as a single charitable fund".
Then the noble and learned Lord, Lord Brightman, goes on to state what the procedure would be. I say this because I think that it will allay quite a lot of worries in a number of people's minds.
490
The second point about which I am deeply concerned occurs in Clause 2, which is headed,
Resolution by trustees of old charity to alter objects.
As I think I said earlier, the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of London made clear that the charities were for the poor and for the needy. I should like to ask the noble Viscount to say when he replies whether he is satisfied that the original charities for the poor and the needy will in fact be used for the poor and needy. I am bound to refer to the pamphlet that the Charity Commission has, I think very efficiently and quickly, drawn up. Nevertheless, a clause in it which worries me says that the trustees,
"should he able to resolve unanimously to change the objects of the charity if they are of the opinion that the existing objects are obsolete or lacking in usefulness or impossible of achievement".
In regard to the parochial charities, I feel very strongly that they should be used for the poor.
But that brings me on to the point about which I am still confused. Suppose one has a village—a large village, perhaps—which has a good charity, well run by the trustees, with a good income. When I say "a good income", I do not mean thousands and thousands, or millions; I simply mean £500 a year, which would he quite adequate to deal with the stop-gaps of the welfare state. Suppose you have such a village—and I know such a village—where there are no needy and no poor. I know that that village would like to use that money in order to put up seats on the village green and build a bus shelter. But that would not be devoting the money to the poor. I should be grateful if the noble Viscount could explain to me exactly how that would be fulfilled.
The strength of this Bill is the clause which lays down that annual accounts must he submitted to the local authority, which, in turn, can make them available to those requesting to see them. Therefore, if this Bill is to be effective and money is to be available for the relief of the poor, it behoves members of the public, voluntary organisations such as the rural community councils, councils of social services, the Charities Information Bureau, and the National Council of Voluntary Organisations, as referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Allen of Abbeydale, to call for and to see those accounts, to take an interest in them and to be aware of them. Thus the public would have some control and could ask the trustees to administer well the trusts for which they are responsible. May I say that there is a growing awareness of the responsibility of trustees. Indeed, Brunel University has inaugurated a course for trustees. I did not believe that it would get anyone on that course, and I was astonished to find that the course is full.
Finally, I should like to say that from 1962 to 1983 the Charity Commission have not seen it as their role to safeguard the poor or the donors to parochial charities; hence the position today is as it is, and to a great extent this was appreciated in 1952. However, I believe that under the leadership of Mr. Denis Peach, the Charity Commissioner appointed, I think, less than two years ago, the commission will be aware of the mischiefs and poor administration of some parochial charities and will give support to trustees who have conscientiously and with integrity carried out their duties and will give help to those who are having difficulties. Despite my apprehensions, I support the Second Reading of this Bill.
7.14 p.m.
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, I welcome the opportunity to speak on the Government's behalf in this interesting and important debate. My noble friend Lord Colville, who was of course a member of the Select Committee, has introduced with his usual eloquence the Bill which is before us. His speech permits me to confine my remarks to the Government's attitude to the provisions of the Bill and to endeavour to answer those questions aimed at the Government.
First, however, I should like to congratulate the noble and learned Lord, Lord Brightman, whose untiring efforts while chairing the Select Committee have produced this Bill. The noble and learned Lord must be aware, from the warmth with which his speech was received, how much we have enjoyed listening to his splendid and informative remarks this afternoon. I do not feel timorous when I congratulate my betters—just very, very jealous.
In producing its report the Select Committee has been admirably thorough in its consideration of the two Bills before it and of the issues underlying the problems of local charities; those of the responsibilities and powers of trustees, and the nature of the cy près principle. As my noble friend Lord Colville and many other noble Lords have said, for this we must be grateful not only to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Brightman, but to all the noble Lords who served as members of the Select Committee.
I must also pay tribute to my noble friend Lady Faithfull who has done so much to bring to your attention the very real problems which exist and to attempt to resolve them. Although we did not feel able to support my noble friend's own Bill, I am confident of your Lordships' agreement when I say that if this Bill is successful it will be in large measure due to her energetic and unselfish work.
There is widespread concern that something needs to be done about parochial charities. I am sure that we all share a desire to see the resources of charities, both large and small, used to their greatest effect. It is right that, in the case of local charities, we should be concerned with the proper and relevant use of funds which were donated sometimes hundreds of years ago. It is true that modern needs in a welfare state are different from those of previous times, but it is sadly also true that a need still exists. We have for some time recognised the problem of putting to effective use the under-used resources of parochial charities, so we were happy to support the setting up of the Select Committee to examine both Lady Faithfull's Bill and that introduced into another place by my noble friend Lord Maude and into this House by my noble friend Lord Renton. My noble friends Lord Maude and Lord Renton have shown not only stamina in the past, but also typical generosity in the present situation.
As we have heard, although the Select Committee did not consider that either Bill should proceed, it found that the evidence put to it confirmed the nature of the difficulties facing local charities—an inefficiency and ineffectiveness on the part of some trustees, which the committee believed stemmed from insufficient accountability, the restrictions imposed on them by the rigidity of cy près and the special difficulties of
492
charities with very limited funds in relation to their objects.
Let me now comment briefly on the Government's attitude to the four provisions of the Bill. In regard to Clause 1, there is no doubt that many charities fail to meet their obligations under the 1960 Act to file accounts, and that trustees should be publicly accountable for their activities to a greater extent than at present. We see this provision as increasing public knowledge of the activities and assets of local charities. For the first time, trustees could be obliged to keep up to date their valuation of the property they hold on trust, which in itself might be a spur to action. The thought that anyone might make representations to the Charity Commission for serious default would also, I think, be a spur to action.
If I may pick up the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, about the failures of charities to register, I would suggest to him that reviews of local charities sponsored by local authorities throughout England and Wales brought to light many charities which had not complied with their duty to register. It is difficult to know how many have so far escaped the net. I think it is safe to assume that the number cannot be large, particularly in view of the tax benefits that accompany registration. I would anticipate that the publicity given to this Bill will bring to light some of these charities. I have little doubt that the commissioners will take every step to make the necessary provisions widely known.
To return to the Bill, its second clause empowers parochial charities for the relief of poverty to be able to change their objects. The architects of the Bill intended that trustees should be able to circumvent what the committee considers to be the over-restrictive principle of cy près, and the cumbersome process of changes through a scheme of the commissioners—a process determined by the legal requirements of the Charities Act. We find this proposal attractive for two reasons. Its simplicity may make it more likely that trustees will take advantage of the opportunities afforded by the Bill. It may also effect much needed reform while not imposing too great a demand on the resources of the Charity Commission.
We believe that the commissioners have a crucial role to play in ensuring that sufficient regard is paid to the original objects. They will if necessary act as a brake upon the trustees' intentions, should they appear to be straying too far from the terms of the original bequest. They will also take into account any representations made by the appropriate local authority or other people. Here other local organisations or people who have a view could make this known to the Charity Commission which would take it into consideration before deciding whether to concur with the trustees' resolution.
I come now to the third clause. We believe that this power for trustees of small registered charities to transfer their property to another will appeal to trustees and others who want to see sensible use made of small, perhaps dwindling, amounts of capital and who believe that the money cannot be put to a good use in isolation. By this method they will not be put to the strict test of cy près but could go to any registered charity large or small, local or national with similar

493
purposes and ask, "Would you like to absorb our funds?" We think that its simplicity should commend the procedure to trustees.
The final substantive provision affects charities with a permanent endowment worth not more than £25 and income in the preceding accounting period of not more than £5. For charities of this size the committee accept that amalgamation might not be a practicable proposition and they therefore propose that they should be empowered to spend capital. The procedure proposed is again simple and straightforward for trustees. We welcome this provision as a useful measure for very small charities, although we believe—and I take note of the remarks of my noble friend Lord Maude—that there is something to be said for considering whether the limits have been set at the correct level initially.
When your Lordships' House last debated this matter, my noble friend Lord Elton said that charity is voluntary giving and charity law is based on the importance of preserving that principle. We believe that the chief merit of this Bill is its adherence to this principle. It gives to trustees of parochial charities for the relief of poverty a greater freedom to interpret their trust deed in line with modern life and needs. At the same time it tightens up their responsibility for proper management. This will focus on the production of accounts which should be a public statement of a charity's true financial affairs.
We cannot know to what extent the voluntary provisions of the Bill would be used; but if the opportunity is used a way would be opened for trustees to modernise and rationalise old charities. I like the idea of "do-it-yourself" amalgamations—a phrase coined by the committee in its report—although I am not sure how many trustees will want to tackle even the simplest of schemes. This view of the Bill as a potentially useful tool for trustees is shared, I know, by the local authority with which I was associated, and would expect by many others. I cannot speak for local authorities in general, but I understand that they are considering this matter urgently. I hope that they too will be able to welcome this Bill.
We see the Bill as a self-contained measure which should place only limited additional demands on the Charity Commission and local authorities. Your Lordships—in particular the noble Lord, Lord Allen of Abbeydale, and my noble friend Lord Mancroft—will have noted that the Charity Commissioners have already indicated their support for the Bill, which they welcome as a potentially helpful measure and a modest but useful reform. With regard to publicity for the Bill, about which the noble Lord, Lord Allen of Abbeydale, asked me, my reply is that the Government will consider how the Bill should he publicised and will consult the Charity Commissioners about the most effective way in which to make it widely known.
The noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, will be pleased to hear that the Charity Commissioners believe that they could implement the provisions of the Bill without additional resources—a point which we believe should commend the Bill to your Lordships' House. The
494
noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, the noble Lord, Lord Maude, and the noble Lord, Lord Allen of Abbeydale, said that they did not think that the Bill was wide enough and that the Government should act. It is probably true to say that it is virtually impossible to devise a comprehensive law governing charities that would meet universal approval. A balance has to be struck therefore between periodic revisions of the law to meet changing circumstances and caution not to upset the delicate balances that have emerged over the years. One of these balances is between the voluntary sector—whether it be the donors or those that administer the charities—and the Government.
To answer the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, and his remarks about the Government's attitude to charity law, let me say that the Government keep a close watch on the criticisms made of charity law and enter into discussion with those who wish to see changes—for instance, the National Council for Voluntary Organisations. They are not averse to change if change is clearly necessary to enable charities to function properly and effectively, but they are hesitant to support frequent changes in the law if it is not the law that is at fault. For example, the Charity Commissioners have recently interpreted the existing law in a way which allows the promotion of racial harmony to be charitable and they have given guidance to charities to help charities avoid exploitation by unscrupulous professional fundraisers.
The Bill is a modest reform measure but it is by no means generally agreed that radical reform is needed. The Bill does not impose the heavy hand of the Government through severe restrictions on trustees. It does, however, command widespread support for its provisions and if that support is not to be lost it is important that amendments be kept to a minimum and that the substance of the provisions remains essentially as recommended by the committee after their careful and detailed consideration.
I must say to my noble friend Lord Maude, my noble friend Lord Renton, and my noble friend Lord Mancroft—who tugged at my heart strings when asking whether the Government would give time—that the Government are already committed to a heavy legislative programme. I cannot hold out any promise of Government time. However, the Government will not oppose the provisions of the Bill as it now stands, and in view of the care taken by the Select Committee in its consultations it is hoped that others may not oppose it.
I have briefly set out our view of this Bill. The subject of parochial charities is one which, although it may not attract much attention at national level, is important in local communities, and I know that many Members of your Lordships' House have, like myself, direct experience of local and parochial charities. I believe that the careful and thorough study of this matter by the Select Committee reflects the depth and variety of the experience in this House of the problems of parochial charities. I understand that some minor technical amendment may be necessary. But having said that, I should like to assure your Lordships that the Government welcome the Bill.
7.29 p.m.
Viscount Colville of Culross: My Lords, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Brightman, made a speech which most earnestly and fully supported the case, which I had to deal with in rather technical detail, for the Bill. In joining with others in congratulating him on his maiden speech, I feel that he must be a happy man this afternoon because of the way in which his work has been received by this House. First, he succeeded with members of the Select Committee in obtaining the support of my noble friend Lady Trumpington on the Front Bench, without whose support we would not get any further at all. Then he managed to secure the generous support of my three noble friends whose Bills have not been pursued. They have set aside their disappointment; and I congratulate them and thank them for their generous remarks this afternoon about this new Bill, which has tried to pick out the best of what was contained in the two previous measures. So it has not been a failure.
At the bottom of the difficulty is the point made by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Denning, about teeth. The difficulty about teeth is that they do not come cheap in this field. Therefore, we have had to rely upon secondary measures (I would not say that they did not involve teeth) such as the points made so widely around the House, including the use of publicity and propaganda, the use of other national or slightly smaller bodies to bring to the attention of trustees the possibilities under this Bill, and other methods, all of which have been so constructively discussed this afternoon. If the noble and learned Lord, Lord Denning, has any further points which would not involve resources, of course we should be only too happy to consider them at the next stage of the Bill, and his wisdom in this would be very much appreciated.
I think I should try to answer a few points that have been made. First, my noble friends Lord Maude and Lord Renton raised the point about Clause 4. I should not for one moment wish to say that these figures at the upper limits are immutable, and by all means let us have a discussion in Committee about it. But I know that there are feelings—and the noble Lord, Lord Allen, is one who expressed them—that we must not go very much higher than this because otherwise the principle will be breached in a much more severe way, and one which may not be tolerated. This is a danger area, but by all means let us discuss it.
My noble friend Lord Maude raised the point about public notice being given under Clauses 2(6) and 3(5). One can exemplify the point by a case that was raised before the Select Committee. There was a charity—it has now been amalgamated under the Charities Aid Foundation—which was originally set up in order to give money to natives of Cumberland now resident within 30 miles of St. Paul's Cathedral. Where does one give public notice for that if one proposes to amalgamate with the Charities Aid Foundation? There must be some relief for cases of this sort; otherwise, it will not be possible for them to amalgamate at all because of the technical difficulty. Therefore, on reflection, I think that my noble friend may withdraw his objection to that.
The noble Lord, Lord Allen, pointed out that the new objects of a charity which the trustees wished to
496
change must still be charitable. It will, or course, be for the Charity Commission to say whether or not they are, just as it does with all new charities now. But I say to my noble friend Lady Faithfull that if there are no poor in the parish and they wish to spend the money on seats for the park or for bus shelters, she may find that they get into great difficulty because I am not so sure that they are charitable. It may be that they should look a little further afield to see whether a wider amalgamation is not the solution to this because, for the purposes of amalgamations, you do not have to stay within the parish. It may be that one of the larger organisations mentioned by other speakers this afternoon would be more suitable, or at any rate perhaps they ought to consider it more broadly.
What is important is that the Bill provides only that the spirit of the gift should be preserved. I believe that that is an important concept when one is looking at something which has become obsolete but which could be used for up-to-date purposes.
The noble Lord, Lord Allen, commented upon the fact that Clauses 1 and 2 are confined to charities for the relief of poverty. I believe he will recollect that the reason for that is that the Select Committee did not have any evidence about anything else. The scope of the Select Committee was confined to this matter; but it does not seem to me to be beyond the bounds of possibility that if in this field the provisions of Clauses 1 and 2 appear to be helpful and satisfactory, some other person many come along later and wish to broaden the scope of charities to which they can apply. This is another area where the Bill may act as a pilot. Of course, the noble Lord will have been greatly relieved to hear from so authoritative a source as my noble friend on the Front Bench that the Charity Commissioners think that they can take on such extra work as there is within their existing resources. That is a relief to all of us, as well as to the noble Lord.
I believe that those are the points that needed to be answered. I am extremely grateful to noble Lords who have taken part in this debate for the support that they have given and for the anticipation that we shall continue with a very constructive approach to this small piece of legislation. I particularly thank the Government for their support and for some of the intimations about how it might be possible to deal with the matter in another place, which is a very useful tip for myself and in due course for some friend from another place. I hope that I have dealt adequately with these matters this afternoon on Second Reading. I look forward to a Committee stage when we can go into some more of these details. For the moment, I hope that the Bill may now be given a Second Reading.
On Question, Bill read a second time, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

Sale of Optical Appliances Order of Council 1984
7.36 p.m.
Lord Ennals Lord Ennals rose to move, That an Humble Address be presented to Her Majesty praying that the Order of Council [1984 S.I. 1778], laid before the House on 19th November, be annulled.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I should not be moving this Humble Address if I did not think that this was a thoroughly undesirable order. But none of your Lordships will be surprised that I seek the annulment of this order in view of the position that I took on behalf of my colleagues on these Benches when the Bill itself was brought before your Lordships' House a few months ago.
The main effect of the order is to allow anyone—butcher, baker, candlestick-maker—without any training or qualification whatever to dispense ophthalmic prescriptions and sell spectacles to anyone over the age of 16 who is not registered blind or partially sighted. The order will permit the sale of spectacles by anyone—barrow boys, market traders, door-to-door salesmen, or mail order. In fact, it will open the door to many of the abuses which the Opticians Act 1958 was originally designed to prevent. In future no minimum standard of training, knowledge or competence in ophthalimic dispensing will be required in this country. Any suggestion that a period of one week's training or any other period of training might be sufficient is nonsense. The question is whether a fall in the standard of ophthalmic dispensing will be in the public interest. My submission is that it will not. The educational and examining bodies for optics are totally opposed to the order, which seems to be based on the philosophy that proper training in ophthalmic dispensing is a luxury which the public can do without. I think that their opposition is totally justified.
I and the professions are firmly convinced that accurate and correct dispensing is essential for safe and comfortable vision, whether on the roads, at work, or for leisure activities. The so-called "safeguards" in the order are no substitute for the safeguard of professional training and qualification. As I shall seek to prove a little later, they are likely to be very difficult, if not impossible, to enforce.
On 23rd August 1984, the Association of Optical Practitioners wrote to the Department of Health and Social Security commenting on the initial draft proposal for an order on which they were being consulted. That letter was acknowledged on 19th November. The submission was made on 23rd August; it was acknowledged on 19th November by the department, who enclosed with it the final order that was laid before Parliament on the same date.
The profession was not afforded the opportunity to comment on the Government's precise proposals while they were in final draft form and before they were laid. This simply is not good enough. If there is going to be change, whether one likes the change or not, the professions are entitled to be consulted. They are entitled to have their views considered, whether the Government agree with those views or not. We are having too many cases brought before this House in which consultation has been a myth and not a reality.
I welcome the inclusion of the partially sighted in the categories of patient to be protected against unregistered dispensing. It is one step forward. But I particularly regret that the order does not take into account the following points. First, the prescriber should be given the right legally to vary the normal validity period of a prescription, if there are genuine
498
clinical reasons for doing so. This is the only effective way of ensuring that patients whose sight needs to be monitored carefully and at intervals shorter than two years have the care and attention that they require.
Secondly, unregistered sellers of spectacles should be required to keep a simple register of their sales for a period of, let us say, three years in order to introduce for the protection of the public the minimum detail and record keeping required to enable a complaint raised by a member of the public to be dealt with satisfactorily. Thirdly, unregistered sellers of spectacles should be limited to—and I am quoting—"bricks and mortar" premises, and no sales should be allowed from stalls, pitches, caravans or the like, or by door-to-door selling, or by post or mail order.
It is extraordinary that these issues were not included in the order which your Lordships are expected to swallow, unless you accept my wish that the order be annulled. This requirement is essential to ensure that the patient can return to a known address for "after-sales service" on spectacles supplied, or otherwise trace a vendor should he or she wish to do so in connection with the service provided.
Fourthly, it is a matter of concern that unregistered sellers will be permitted to supply industrial safety spectacles. The efficiency of these appliances depends not only upon their accurate prescription and dispensing but also on the fact that they need to be fitted properly or they become unsuitable as protective devices. The supply of safety spectacles is a clear example of a field where the services of a registered optician protect both employer and employee in a situation where professional knowledge and judgment are required.
Fifthly, the order contains no provision for monitoring and control of these sellers of spectacles apart from reliance on the trading standards departments of local authorities. The inevitable inaccuracies that will arise from the activities of these traders will place an intolerable burden upon trading standards officers and will mean that there will be little effective redress for people using their services. I say this at a time when the Government are, by other means, imposing financial burdens on local authorities and yet expecting them to be able to carry out statutory responsibilities which in my view they will be unable to fulfil.
The Minister of Health, Mr. Kenneth Clarke, claimed in another place that,
"these overdue reforms carry no risk to the wearer of glasses but will lead to greater competition, provide greater choice, and, above all, have the effect of bringing down the price of spectacles to the benefit of the public."
This implies that the present price of spectacles is unduly high, which in my view is untrue. The 1984 edition of Optics at a Glance shows that the average price for all types of spectacles is £35.
The Government have accepted that registered opticians should not sell to either registered partially-sighted or blind people. That has been welcomed by the Royal National Institute for the Blind. But it does not mean that they are by any means satisfied with the order now before your Lordships' House. In a letter to me dated 10th December, they say:

499
"Our concern remains about the Order as a precursor to ending general NHS subsidies for glasses from April 1. We fear that people who need complicated glasses will face big price increases.
"The Health Minister, Kenneth Clarke, has said (letter to Director-General RNIB, 29th June 1984) that the maximum present subsidy is £40. People now getting subsidies of £15 or more will still be able to get general ophthalmic service glasses, but at the full economic cost. Thus, they will lose the NHS subsidy. Opticians readily give examples of items for which they say the cost of materials plus VAT is at least £20 or £30 higher than the present subsidised price.
"Mr. Clarke has said the Government will see that 'Hospital Eye Service patients with a similar optical need to former GOS patients are treated financially in a similar manner'. This must mean that subsidies are to be lost for HES patients, to the same extent as in the GOS, so that patients do not get an advantage by going to the HES".
There is a continuing concern about the power of the Secretary of State, by denying the requirement that exists up to now, to treat unqualified persons as dispensing opticians for the purpose of allowing them to dispense NHS spectacles under the National Health Service. It is an extraordinary provision which, in effect, allows the Government to pretend that people are qualified dispensing opticians when they are not.
When we took the Bill at Committee and Report stages we had considerable discussion about the situation in other countries. My view is that the order is an unnecessary and retrograde step, and this view has been supported by the International Guild of Dispensing Opticians, which at their biennial convention in Toronto on 28th June 1984 passed a resolution deploring the British Government's proposal to permit untrained and unqualified persons to dispense.
The other area of concern is how the order is to be enforced. I hope that the Minister will give some answers to some questions that I want in a moment or two to put to him. In the past, the police have always shown extreme reluctance to prosecute offences under Section 21 of the Opticians Act 1958. The General Optical Council has brought some prosecutions in the past, but it has no statutory duty to do so and its primary duty is to regulate the registered profession. It is difficult to see why the registration fees paid by opticians should be used to pay the prosecution costs of enforcing an order to which the entire optical profession is opposed.
I want to ask some questions about enforcement. Is the responsibility for enforcement to rest with county trading standards officers or with the police? Or will there be any other method of monitoring what is contained in the order? How in practice will they ensure that unqualified persons do not sell cheap spectacle frames made of cellulose nitrate? How will unqualified persons be prevented from selling ready-made spectacles without a prescription from an ophthalmic medical practitioner or ophthalmic optician if they are doing so without a prescription at all? How will they be able to check that this is not being done? How will the requirement that lenses comply with the British Standard tolerances be enforced? How will the Government ensure that unqualified sellers have "verified that the appliance is in accordance with the prescription by means of a focimeter"?
I want the Minister to say how the Government intend this order to be properly and effectively monitored in the interests not only of the
500
profession—which is very proud of its record—but also of the patients whom it serves.
I want to raise two other points before sitting down. I believe that the timing of this order is quite wrong. It permits unqualified persons to start selling spectacles on 10th December 1984. If I may say so, they started to do so long before 10th December 1984. Many of your Lordships will have seen advertisements several weeks before the date on which the order came into effect. I should like to ask whether the Government took any legal action against those who were at that time quite clearly breaking the law. These people are free to advertise themselves subject only to the limited controls applied by the Advertising Standards Authority. I was a little surprised to see a picture of one of our most handsome Ministers—I have to say that he is not a Member of your Lordships' House—Mr. John Patten, who is a health Minister, who is pictured in the Guardian looking very handsome and trying out spectacles which he was buying from Woolworth's. Qualified and registered opticians are, however, still now strictly bound by the General Optical Council Rules on Publicity 1981, which at present restrict opticians from advertising except to the very limited extent permitted by the rules.
I ask your Lordships and the Minister himself—and I think he must give an answer to this—why it is that a special privilege is given to those unqualified people who will be taking on responsibilities now undertaken by qualified people whereas qualified people will not be allowed to advertise their wares. They will be put, for a period of months, at a very severe disadvantage. What is the justification for this? I am sure the Minister must have some reason for this and that he will explain it to us.
Last June the General Optical Council submitted revised publicity rules substantially relaxing the restrictions on advertising. The GOC received no response from the Privy Council until 9th November, when the Privy Council declined to approve the amended rules without some further modifications. As a result, we shall have a position in which qualified ophthalmic and dispensing opticians are still not allowed to advertise and will be faced with unfair competition from unqualified retailers who will be free to advertise without restraint. I submit to your Lordships and to the Minister that this really is a very unfair and a very unsatisfactory situation.
My view is that the order should be completely withdrawn. But, if that is not possible—if the Minister is not prepared to go along with me and if I have not convinced him—then at least the commencement of the order should be postponed until such time as the GOC rules on publicity have been amended, if necessary by a further Order in Council under Section 1(2) of the Health and Social Security Act 1984. Since the Government's aim is to achieve greater competition, the relaxation of the GOC rules on publicity should be the first priority and not the introduction of unqualified sellers, for which there has never been any real public demand.
I hope therefore that, with this series of arguments which I know are sustained by the profession—we know perfectly well also that there has been no demand whatsoever from the public—the actions which will be authorised by this order will not be

501
carried through, and it is for this reason that I seek to secure the annulment of the order.
Moved, That an Humble Address be presented to Her Majesty praying that the Order of Council [1984 S.I. No. 1778], laid before the House on 19th November, be annulled.—(Lord Ennals.)
7.55 p.m.
Lord Cullen of Ashbourne: My Lords, that speech really leaves me with very little to say. I think at last we seem to have some unity in the optical profession and I can only think that the noble Lord, Lord Ennals, has had very similar briefs to the one I had. He practically made my speech. I have just one or two things to say.
For instance, I have tried for the last two years—and I am now very glad to have one or two supporters such as my noble friend Lord Mottistone and the noble Lord. Lord Ennals—to persuade your Lordships that there are dangers in allowing unqualified people to dispense spectacles. It was for that very reason that we had the Opticians Act 1958. It must be a great joy to the noble Lord, Lord Northfield, to see the end of this period, but I have a feeling that the time may come when we see occurring the same abuses that were responsible for the Opticians Act 1958 occurring; that the Government may once again change their mind; and that we may find that it is necessary to have the sort of control and discipline that we have had for the last 25 or 26 years.
As the noble Lord, Lord Ennals, said, what happened was certainly a great disappointment to the international optical profession. It might amuse your Lordships to know that I have made inquiries and I do not believe that there is any other country in the world which has actually introduced a system of training, education, and licensing or regulation, and has afterwards gone backwards and allowed unqualified persons to dispense spectacles. I believe that in the past we have led the world in optics. We now appear to be leading them backwards. I hope that they will not follow our example.
I was very interested in the various points that the noble Lord, Lord Ennals, made about ensuring that the so-called safeguards actually stick. Like him, I really do not see what a person can do if, after somebody carrying a suitcase of spectacles, comes along and raps on his door, and "flogs" him a pair, he finds a day or two afterwards that he gets headaches, that he cannot see properly, and that the spectacles are not properly centred. What does he do? Does he go to the police, or perhaps to the county trading standards officers? Who is going to trace this fellow? What redress is there for the person who has bought the spectacles? This is a new problem which we have not had for 26 years and I just hope that my noble friend Lord Glenarthur will be able to answer these detailed questions that we ask. I shall certainly listen with very great care.
I completely agree that the situation under which unqualified dispensers can advertise while registered opticians still have to be controlled by the General Optical Council seems extraordinary.
What also seems to me to be quite unfair is the fact that the unregistered opticians can now compete in the private sector. They cannot compete in the NHS; that would be quite a different matter. The private sector is
502
quite lucrative. The NHS is a loss-maker. It is a very high volume loss-making business. It would be more reasonable if the unregistered were able to take part in all the business concerned. I see why they are not able to do so. Admittedly under Section 28 there are transitional arrangements so that these unregistered people should be able to do this, but that might not be implemented. I believe it was inserted because there might be a long gap between April 1985 and the time when the new system is introduced where one has a voucher scheme or a grant-in-aid scheme.
It seems that perhaps the reason this is not envisaged by the Government is that they realise that if they allowed the unregistered people into the NHS there would be a great number of complaints. They would not get the same service that they have had in the past, nor would unregistered people have the slightest idea how to fill up forms for getting their reimbursement. There would be all sorts of problems, all of which would come back on the Government; so this will probably never take place.
I do not have much to add, but I should like to finish by saying that if this order goes through people will be tempted to take their prescriptions and have them dispensed by an unqualified person, in pursuit of cheap spectacles. But I fear that many will end up sadder and, I hope, wiser. The effect the order will have on spectacle prices remains to be seen. It is possible that differences of view about that may be expressed in the future.
I should like to have it placed on the record once again that the report of the Director General of Fair Trading found as a fact that opticians' profits had not been excessive in the period 1978 to 1981. Why were they not excessive? Everybody says that the prices of spectacles are unnecessarily high. What happens to the money? Why were not the profits excessive? It seems very surprising. I can tell your Lordships exactly: it is because the NHS work had to be subsidised by private work. That has been going on year after year. The good news is that in April 1985 three-quarters of that work will stop. Opticians will not be subsidising three-quarters of NHS work, and in due course, when the grant in-aid scheme begins, the whole distortion will go. That is when the price of spectacles will fall—not as a result of what we are doing today. When we get rid of the distortion which has wrecked the market for opticians for years and years, then we shall get into a normal trading pattern.
I am pleased to support the noble Lord, Lord Ennals, in his wish to annul this order. I do not suppose for a moment that the Government will agree. But it would be excellent if it were at least held up until the advertising rules for both sections could come together.
The last thing I want to say is that at the end of the day it is the public who will judge the matter. I doubt whether new entrants to the opticial scene who provide an inferior service will survive very long in the highly competitive optical market in the future. It will not be a case only of caveat emptor (which is how I think the Government regard the matter) for the purchasers of spectacles, but a case of caveat vendor for the suppliers of optical services.
8.5 p.m.
Lord Rugby: My Lords, I must confess that the wording of the order is somewhat obscure to me because I am not very good at being able to interpret these documents. I feel that if it had been in clearer English I might have been better able to do so. I understand that, as the noble Lord, Lord Ennals, has said, no particular training is needed to sell complicated lenses provided that a prescription is available. I presume that the prescription has been made out by a qualified optician and that it will be made up by one of the optical manufacturers' houses or association. Consequently, the only check that is needed to ensure that a prescription is correct is a focimeter. In that respect the person selling the glasses needs merely to check that they conform with the prescription. On the other hand, I am not sure about reading glasses. I hope that the noble Lord will advise me about what is happening there, and how differently they are being treated, because I am not entirely clear about that in my own mind.
As everybody knows, my campaign has always been for a freedom of choice in reading glasses. The battle was joined in 1958 when the noble Lord, Lord Northfield, and Mr. Norman Pannell nearly succeeded in having that Bill overturned in another place because they were prepared to accept and to understand that this was a trade war. It was a war about who should market these simple magnifying spectacles, and whether the job should stay in the hands of Woolworth's, which had done a quite superb job, as everybody who remembers the Woolworth counter will acknowledge. But at the end of the day the opticians managed to have that overturned because they brought into both Houses the idea that if people were allowed to buy their glasses there they were in danger of going blind. These statements, which were extremely exaggerated, were accepted. The Bill was pushed through rather quickly, and I believe we have been suffering ever since.
The victims of this war have been the elderly, because the correlation between magnification and age can be drawn with precision on a chart. Virtually all normal, healthy eyes will conform with that chart. It is two parallel lines going together, magnification going up with age. Indeed. I have frequently been asked my age so that reading glasses could be sent to me, and according to my age these reading glasses have arrived and have suited me to perfection. In other words, in presbyopia age is one's prescription; and, vice versa, the prescription gives a good idea of age.
I remind noble Lords that our gracious Sovereign the Queen used magnifying glasses to read her speech from the Throne. I am sure that she was offered a choice of which magnification would be the most comfortable for her in relation to the distance from her eyes at which she wished to hold her speech. If such a choice of glasses is made available to the Queen, then what is right for her is correct for her subjects.
But we do not use magnification only for reading: we use it for a whole variety of purposes. I do not see how we must always have a prescription for the various purposes for which we use magnification. Reading is just one, but I need magnification for various purposes. I asked my noble friend Lord Halsbury how he used it, and apparently he does some very intricate
504
petit point work. For that he needs a higher magnification. I cannot see why that should have to be obtained on a prescription. Indeed, magnification is an abstract concept. How is it possible to make a law which will put magnification on ration and allow it to be obtained only by means of a chit signed by an optician?
Through the years that we have had this Act, it has been necessary for opticians to state that presbyopia is an illness and to refer to presbyopes as patients. I am a presbyope and one thing that I definitely am not is a patient. I decide what magnification I need and for what purpose. That is my right and I stick with it. Furthermore, presbyopia is part of the total body undergoing its natural changes through age throughout our life. That is now accepted by the courts. In a recent judgment, the prosecuting witness, who was an ophthalmologist, refused to be drawn into saying that it was a defect of eyesight. It is also necessary for the General Optical Council to state that presbyopic lenses are not magnifying glasses.
In this way, they can win court cases by getting expert witnesses to make statements to the court upholding this edict. Nevertheless, they registered with the Office of Fair Trading under the Registered Trade Practices Act. I quote from a letter of 9th January, 1981, from the Association of Optical Practitioners, referring to the Restrictive Trade Practices Act. It states:
"A registered optician should not accept for re-glazing with prescription lenses any appliance which was not originally supplied as an optical appliance within the meaning of Section 30 of the Opticians Act. Thus, in the case of 'magnifying spectacles' in the form of twin lenses of identical power, these should only be accepted for re-glazing to a new prescription if the original lenses [i.e. magnifying lenses] were supplied to a prescription.".
I believe that if the present restriction on magnifiers is to succeed, it must be something which must be registered with the Office of Fair Trading and therefore he open to challenge under that Act.
In looking at these various restrictions at present registered at the Offices of Fair Trading, I feel that some are really quite disturbing. I should like to mention just one. It refers to coal miners. Apparently nobody had set about providing coal miners with proper protective glasses when working at the coal face, and such protective glasses as they had were "bashed into their eyes" frequently by falling coal or when hit by jagged rock and so forth. Apparently opticians had these experiences described to them. The upshot was that it was decided that no miner would be allowed to have an optical appliance which was suitable for working in the coal mines unless he had first bought ordinary glasses from the optician and had a prescription from him for those glasses. He had first to get normal glasses in order to prove that he was entitled to wear protective ones underground. Then, on top of that, if the protective pair was one year old, he would then have to go through the whole rigmarole a second time and pay again.
Industrial safety wear in spectacles and its usage is totally overlooked today in the pursuit of these fat profits which can be claimed in the High Street with this monopoly. I should like to ask why it is that in an industrial nation where there is such enormous wear and tear and where so much depends on having proper safety wear, the General Opticial Council, who is

505
responsible and has been charged with these things, has never offered anything in the way of a prize for good designs. We have plently of good designers in this country. They do not have to be opticians. In my opinion, it is absolutely imperative that if we are now to have a proper optical service in this country our best designers should be put to the task of seeing that people who work in industry get the very best protective wear to enable them to perform most efficiently.
Tomorrow I am joining a party to meet the members who have just arrived from the Soviet Republic. When I see them, I shall be asking them what they are now doing in Russia for eyesight. What I am particularly interested in is that they now have an absolutely superb 100 per cent. reliable operation by which astigmats (people with a slight aberration of the eye) can undergo a quick, cheap operation, which, as I say, is 100 per cent. certain, after which they can throw their spectacles away. While we have this Opticians Act which restricts everything, I do not believe that we are going to be in the happy position of the members of the Soviet Republic who can have the operation and can throw these wretched things away and be much more efficient as a result. I sincerely hope that if this law is to he put into effect the Privy Council will see to it that it is no longer used in any kind of partisan way in a trade war, and that people who are over 50, or elderly people, will not have to suffer inconvenience and distress as the result of the restrictions which arc placed upon presbyopic glasses.
8.17 p.m.
Lord Mottistone: My Lords, it is a privilege to follow the noble Lord, Lord Rugby, who has been a pioneer in this campaign. I was not quite sure whether he was pleased with the order that we are debating or whether he thought that it was not good enough. But I do not think that he gave himself enough credit for having been the consistent pusher-forward of this viewpoint. As your Lordships know, I do not agree with it at all, but I still admire greatly somebody who over the years through your Lordships' splendid Chamber can get things changed—whether they will be changed for the better is another matter altogether. I am grateful, as I think we should all he grateful, to the noble Lord, Lord Ennals, for praying against this order. It certainly needed an airing.
I do not think that the order is right in any sense at all, in that the sort of safeguards which I think the public require and would like to have have not been adequately dealt with. The noble Lord, Lord Ennals, in a powerful speech made all the points regarding where the order is inadequate in regard to safeguarding the public; and I shall not repeat what he had to say. I think the most important thing he said was that there was no real public demand for this change. There was a demand from the noble Lord, Lord Rugby, a demand from the noble Lord, Lord Northfield, a demand from my noble friend Lord Orr-Ewing, a demand from one or two highly intellectual people who I know personally in the country; but there was no great demand from everybody in general.
I think that in their various ways everybody, though they might have had to pay a little more for their specs than they might if they bought them when they went
506
on holiday abroad, accepted this as being a reasonable sort of thing in the modern world. I am always slightly suspicious of changes which are brought about by earnest do-gooders such as the noble Lords I have just mentioned, rather than changes which come from the grass roots of the public. I think that this is an example of where we have been rather pressed into it by the earnest do-gooders, rather than encouraged by the broad mass of the people.
The noble Lord, Lord Rugby, talked about the elderly people suffering. I have not noticed that the elderly people suffer. I am only a year away from being an old age pensioner myself, but I have not really suffered from the present arrangements. I have been able to get my specs at different times and at the right sorts of intervals. I shall not bore your Lordships with my comparisons with the cost of whisky, but the sorts of prices I have been paying for my specs seem to me to he reasonable in the modern world; and so I think perhaps the Government were pressured into making changes that were not necessary.
I think that the order has the kind of defects that the noble Lord, Lord Ennals, told us about, and it is very important for the whole position to be reviewed as early as practicable. I suppose that that is of the order of two years' time—and it will probably be longer than that, which is a great pity because there are gaps in it.
The real problem is that it is all very well for what you may call the average person. The noble Lord, Lord Rugby, told us—and I agree with him—that with an awful lot of people the prescription relates to their age. I am sure that that is true. My technical advisers have never said they agree with that, but in my own experience I think it is right. However, I am one of the lucky possibly 80 per cent. of the population who are like that. Unfortunately, I am not at all sure whether the other 20 per cent. are going to be as well safeguarded under this new order as they were before. The great question is: is it fair on them to make these changes if they are not going to have the kind of safeguards that they have not only become accustomed to, but which in the modern world they ought, naturally, to expect? As was said by, I think, the noble Lord, Lord Ennals—or was it my noble friend Lord Cullen?—other countries have moved towards the sort of system that we have had, and have not gone backwards. We seem to have gone backwards, and I am not sure that this is a sound move at all.
In principle, let us see how it works out. What the Government must do—and I hope that my noble friend Lord Glenarthur will reassure us on this point—is keep a very sharp eye open to see whether people who are not strictly following the normal pattern which the noble Lord, Lord Rugby, talks about are in fact going to be disadvantaged in the sort of ways that the noble Lord, Lord Ennals, put before us. I think the Government might be in very grave dereliction of their duties if they do not make quite certain that they have not overdone it with this order that we have before us.
Finally, I am terribly sad that I am speaking before the noble Lord, Lord Northfield, because while listening to other noble Lords during the debate I was fascinated to see him changing his specs as he looked at things. One pair has a price tag on them and the others have not, and I am longing to hear what this

507
signifies. I am sure he will tell us. But I am sad that I am not able to speak after him, so that I can pull his leg about the absurdity of his spectacle changes, which are clearly designed to impress your Lordships with his particular viewpoint, which is unique to him and to the other do-gooders of whom I am highly suspicious.
8.25 p.m.
Lord Northfield: My Lords, I shall resist the temptation to fight old battles and go over old ground. We are not here debating the principle of this matter, which was decided in the Act of Parliament. We are talking about the machinery for implementing it, and I do not really want to go over the whole of that old debate again. I would, however, just comment on three points which have been made by my noble friend Lord Ennals and echoed by other speakers.
First, with respect, I think he is quite wrong to say that there has been no public pressure for this change. Goodness me! I have seen press letters, and people have come up to me all over the place, saying, "I am extremely suspicious of the high price of spectacles". Indeed, in your Lordships' House people come up to you in the corridor and say such things as, "I was delighted to see your speech. How much do you think I paid for these wretched things?" My noble friend must be going about blind and deaf if he has not had any of this public pressure put on him. I am also surprised, on that same point, that he thinks an average of £35 is reasonable. My goodness me!,Spectacles ought to be a good deal cheaper than £35 average, and I shall give some prices a little later on—
Lord Ennals: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend for giving way. Does he not realise that Members of your Lordships' House are so kind and so generous that of course they say nice things to him about his speeches? They actually say nice things to me about my speeches, and no doubt that applies to others as well.
Lord Northfield: My Lords, perhaps it is the case slightly less often on this issue, but the fact is that everybody is complaining about the high prices of spectacles and is saying that it is about time there was some competition in order to bring down the prices.
Secondly, I want to comment on what my noble friend said about people being plagued by door-to-door sellers. This is the sort of exaggeration that does not do his case any good. Even under the Act and under this order it will be necessary for prescriptions to be produced and for spectacles to be made up to conform with quite minute differences between the lenses. That is not something that somebody will be able to do on the doorstep. It does not really do any good to the case to exaggerate it in that respect.
My third comment is that I would agree with him, however, about lack of consultation. This is becoming rather a habit with the Government and we are just seeing it again on pharmaceutical prices, about which I shall be saying something on a future date. I really do deplore it. It is not right that large parts of industry and the professions should be treated in a cavalier fashion, particularly when there are details to be settled. If it is true, for example, that a letter which was sent on 23 rd August was not acknowledged until 9th November,
508
with the order in the same post, that really is quite monstrous. I do not think it is the right way to convince us all that this is being done in the most diplomatic fashion possible.
One last point, before I move on to what I want to say about reading spectacles, is that I think we really must accept the division between the two sides on this matter. A lot of us have believed for a long time that the selling of spectacles is a matter that is stranded somewhere between a professional activity and a commercial selling activity. Of course we do not believe that everything in the garden is going to be wonderful now that we have got a change, because there are advantages and disadvantages both ways; but we feel that the advantages competition will bring will outweigh the disadvantages that can be laid at the door of the Act and of this order. It will need more consumer vigilance. People will be in some difficulties, I have no doubt, from time to time and perhaps they will not have the state behind them, as they have had so far, in protecting standards. But I do not regard it as a terribly bad thing. Consumer vigilance has risen to the occasion before and, in doing this, it forces the pace of competition, which should, on balance, result in benefit for the consumer in a situation where, as I say, I have never believed that right is all on one side. But I believe that the balance of right is on the side of more competition in this case.
I now move on to the point about reading spectacles, and I shall be brief. I wanted to make sure that this order will give some chance for cheap spectacles to be put on sale and freely bought. Therefore, in answer to Lord Mottistone's leg-pull, I must say that today I bought a pair of reading spectacles, which I have got on now and which cost me £9·75. They are perfectly good spectacles, with a 3-dioptre correction, which happens to be quite right for me. The point I want to make about the spectacles concerns how I got them, and then I shall move on to the issue that arises under this order.
I got them from a shop in Victoria which is newly opened and which is called The Glass House, where a very enterprising young doctor has set himself up in business with assistants. Under the Act he is able to say that as he is a qualified medical practitioner, he can sell anything to people who call. That is quite clear in the legislation. He is selling, among other things, at £9·75, these reading spectacles which I am wearing. The way I bought them was quite simple. I went into the shop and said, "I have broken my other glasses"—and I had. I had had to wait for a week for them to be repaired, and I had suffered for a week with an old pair; and so, to provide for the future, I said I wanted a spare pair.
The man said, "My assistant will attend to you"—though he supervised him. "We can either make up a pair for you here, which we will do in 24 hours and the price of which will be from £19·75"—not £35, I would say to my noble friend—"or, if your eyes are very similar, in need of correction, you could probably do well with these cheap spectacles at £9·75". He then checked my spectacles, my reading glasses, and said that my correction was about three dioptres and my eyes were very similar, and he asked me to try this pair to see how I got on. I tried them, they were perfectly

509
adequate, and I walked out of the shop 10 minutes later perfectly satisfied with the spectacles at £9·75.
This young man is very enterprising, and he is "getting away with it" (I use those words in inverted commas) because he can under the law. He is a registered medical practitioner. What will happen under this order about the sale of spectacles of this type? I wish to say a few words about that. First, let me say how enterprising I found this shop and let me answer some of the points which my noble friend raised. Look at what competition is already doing in relation to what this shop is providing. It is offering in all its work—not just with these glasses but with the ones for prescription as well—a full guarantee for 12 months; it is offering free tests for glaucoma—it is not going to pretend that that risk does not exist—it is offering free minor repairs and adjustments; it is offering a 15 per cent. discount on extra pairs bought to the same prescription and bought within 12 months. That is only a beginning. Competition will get going. There will be other benefits from competition as it progresses. These are just the first in the field.
In addition, the shop provided me with two very good papers which in simple layman's terms take all the mysticism and pseudo-professionalism—and I mean "pseudo-professionalism", my Lords—away from part of what opticians tell us. The papers tell me in simple language what eyes are, what goes wrong with them, what corrections are normally needed, and how to set about it. That is a sensible way to behave towards adult citizens. This gives me the chance to understand the subject without all the mysticism.
The papers then explain the treatment. In addition, having provided all these commercial benefits, they set out a clear price list. They say, "This is the price for a frame and here are the extras". So much is charged for tinting, so much for extra large lenses, and so on, all in the £5 and £10 range. There is a £21 range for something really fancy at extra cost. But when you go in the shop, when you stand there, you can choose your price, add it all up and you know where you are. I should have thought that that is an immense step forward for the consumer in spectacle buying.
Lord Winstanley: My Lords, I am most interested to hear about this person's admirable commercial enterprise. The noble Lord tells us that this person is a registered medical practitioner. I wonder whether he would care to hazard a guess at how long he will remain a registered medical practitioner if he continues to engage in commercial activities of that kind and in that particular way. I ask that question without making any comment on the advisability of his doing it or otherwise.
Lord Northfield: My Lords, I have no idea, and it is not my business. If he wants to take the risk of doing this in providing a commercial service, blooming good luck to him is all I can say. A very good precedent is being set by this first step into a competitive situation by the young people who are doing this job very well in Victoria. I congratulate them wholeheartedly.
What happens under the order in regard to spectacles of" this type at £9·70, which I want to see more widely sold to people who do not need to pay
510
such high prices for spare pairs and who need them for small corrections, requiring only 1, 2 or 3 dioptre corrections in their reading spectacles? What the order seems to say is that for those who just require corrections for short sight—I believe it is called "near sight"—all that is necessary is that the appliance as sold should be in accordance with a written prescription, with the lenses and frames following the British Standard specification. First, is that correct? Can these type of spectacles be sold so that if somebody goes in for an eye test the person selling can say, "Look, we have done an eye test. You have got your prescription. Your eyes are nearly identical. You should try, if you want to save money, these cheap ones first and if they are not suitable, we will make some up for you at a much higher price"? All that has to be proved, I understand, in those circumstances is that the spectacles conform to British standards in the lens and in the frame.
One more point arises. Paragraph (4) at the foot of page 3 of the order says that the appliance shall have certain tolerances. In other words, the spectacles sold by the seller need not be absolutely accurate to what is in the prescription. There are certain tolerances. This is very important for the spectacles. My eyes are not totally identical. There is some fraction of a dioptre difference in need of correction. But the man assured me when he sold the spectacles to me that I was within the tolerance that is provided by law. I wish to be clear that those tolerances are set, and will be set in the future, in a way that enables people who sell spectacles to say, "you need not be frightened of this standard article because it does not quite fit your prescription. This is a matter for you to decide and there are tolerances in the British standard which will allow you quite freely to buy this and know that it is accepted under the British standards system". What we do not want—I made this point in an earlier debate on the Bill—is to find that the spectacles are suddenly made available but are then frozen off the market because everybody has to have a pair of spectacles delivered to them exactly to their prescription. There must be certain tolerances which will then enable this market to grow and to influence the remainder of the market.
I do not wish to go on any longer. I hope we will accept that this is the beginning of a system. I look forward to seeing the unregistered practitioner setting up. The way the trail is being blazed by these young people at Victoria—I know of another place as well—will lead to the sort of price that I paid for these spectacles today being a standard to which others will be brought down. This same shop is providing spectacles from £19·75 upwards, fully glazed, complete and guaranteed for 12 months. That is the kind of price at which we should be aiming—not £35, with due respect to my noble friend, nor the £70 or £80 which many noble Lords say they have paid for the spectacles that they wave at me in the corridors of your Lordships' House. That is what the Act is about. That is what this order is about. I want to be assured that it helps these cheap spectacles to be as readily saleable as possible.
Lord Mottistone: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, will he tell us the price of the other spectacles which he was trying on before, including the

511
ones with something on them which looked like a price tag? Could he explain those too?
Lord Northfield: My Lords, I would be wasting your Lordships' time. These are ones I had on prescription. I do not know the price because they came in a package but I remember the cheque I wrote was for £69.
Lord Mottistone: My Lords, what about the other spectacles?
8.38 p.m.
Lord Orr-Ewing: My Lords, the noble Lord has already told us in his speech. He said that they were £9·75.
I regret that Statutory Instrument No. 1778 does not go rather further. I think that it might have been a little bolder. After 28 years of a restrictive monopoly which, so far as I know, has kept spectacle prices in this country higher than in any other country in the world, I think a little more freedom would have been desirable. A freer market such as that existing in the United States, in Canada and in the Far East should have been permitted. The opticians' interests—they have been quoted to us, particularly the retail interests—have been fighting like tigers. They are entitled to. They have had 25 years of this monopoly. They have done a good job by and large but they have, as a result of the lack of competition, kept prices high and their profits have not been too bad either.
I am encouraged by the Government publication which I came across today. It is entitled Sale of Optical Appliances. For those outside this House, it costs 60p and was issued in November 1984. It states in paragraph 4:
"Retailers can now sell the normal range of complete spectacles, frames and lenses. They can also glaze an empty frame or reglaze a customer's existing frame, or fit the customer's existing lenses into a new frame, or sell empty frames".
That is a measure of extra freedom—but, of course, the customer needs a prescription. I hope the public understand that when they do have their eyes tested, they are entitled to take away—free—a copy of their prescription. There are black sheep in every industry and there are now those people who are demanding, so I am informed, £5 before providing a copy of a prescription. This is a mischarge and I hope the public will not be deceived.
I am a little worried that the amount of freedom depends on balanced eyes. There must, therefore, be an incentive to the less scrupulous to find a minor difference between the two eyes of, say, one quarter of a dioptre or even a little more. I hope the public understand that the eyes are extremely flexible and that that sort of correction can be taken up. If there is a minor difference of that order between the two eyes, it is not essential to ask for special spectacles, which will take a long time to prepare and cost vastly more. But that incentive does exist and some opticians may take advantage of it and try to sell spectacles that cost between £50 and £100 by exaggerating the difference between the patient's eyes.
I am alarmed by press reports that NHS glasses will go off the market. They are of course going to be free for children and for those in the low income groups,
512
and there is no reason why registered opticians should not continue to sell NHS glasses and lenses—although the subsidy which, according to the type of lens, averages £5—will go.
An article in The Times on 10th December set out the facts about current prices. This is probably where the noble Lord, Lord Ennals, got his figures. The article stated that in 1983 the average price of NHS spectacles—the subsidised price—was £16·38, and the average price of private spectacles was £56·39. The noble Lord's average of £35 is between those two figures. I am sure that if we could achieve even that measure of freedom—which does not actually match my needs or desires—it will mean that that cost of £56 will fall nearer to the average price of NHS glasses. There may therefore be no demand for NHS glasses, because the private sector will provide better designs and more choice at a comparable price.
I hope that we shall not see any inhibitions about the importing of spectacles or lenses—particularly from the EEC. If such a measure of restriction was imposed, we should find ourselves in direct disobedience to EEC standards, and the Commissioners would look into any such restriction. I hope that the Federation of Optical Corporate Bodies will not discourage EEC imports, because they will add to the choice that their customers and clients can have. I myself have confidence that, when this competition is allowed, the United Kingdom industry will be able to match both the designs and the quality of spectacles from overseas. I am sure this will be for the betterment of all those who have to wear spectacles.
I am sad in a way that more freedom was not given. I believe that this measure should have gone further. I recognise that there will need to be some supervision—and perhaps my noble friend Lord Glenarthur will deal with this point when he comes to wind up—and a decision as to whether such supervision will be undertaken by trading standards officers or by the Office of Fair Trading. I believe also that there is a readiness to revise. We shall learn as we go along. I do not believe that all the bogeys set up by my noble friends and by the noble Lord, Lord Ennals, will actually come to exist. There is a measure of freedom, and, if the bogeys are shown to exist, then we can think again and undertake some revision. But I am sure that the benefits will be very considerable, and it is only right that we in this country should have the advantages which so many overseas purchasers already enjoy in their own countries.
8.45 p.m.
Lord Kilmarnock: My Lords, we on these Benches are not opposed to the general principles behind this order, although I must say that I agree with the points made by the noble Lords, Lord Ennals and Lord Northfield, about the lack of consultation being all too typical of the Government's way of proceeding—not only in this field but in many others. This said, we do not object to the breaking of the opticians' monopoly. Our objection to monopolies is fundamental to our political philosophy. The noble Lord, Lord Northfield, has put our minds at rest on the question of the so-called unqualified dispensing which worried a number of people (myself included) when we had the Health and Social Security Bill in this House. The noble Lord

513
then made a very interesting speech when he described how most prescriptions are actually made up by large commercial houses. I personally was grateful to him for that explanation.
As regards advertising, we are not opposed to it, but I would put to the noble Lord, Lord Glenarthur, the same question asked by the noble Lords, Lord Northfield and Lord Cullen: is it fair to permit advertising from 10th December while the members of the General Optical Council are still bound by their existing rules on publicity? Would it not have been fairer to suspend commencement until such time as the GOC rules have been amended to bring them in line with everyone else? If we are to have competition then, in the interests of consumers, should it not be full and free competition?
I was glad to learn that under the terms of the order non-registered opticians will not be allowed to sell an appliance either to registered partially sighted or blind people. However, I am slightly puzzled by the wording of paragraph 2(b)(i) where it states that this requirement does not apply where,
"the seller of the appliance does not know, and has no reason to suspect, that it is for a person so registered".
I find that statement rather puzzling and wonder whether the noble Lord can explain what weight can be attached to those words.
I turn to my two serious reservations. They are the same as those that I advanced during the passage of the Bill. They do not affect the liberalisation of the supply of spectacles but they do affect the cover provided by the NHS. This is to be severely curtailed and is to be limited to children and those receiving supplementary benefit. We believe there are many elderly people (perhaps only just above the supplementary benefit level) who will be adversely affected—particularly if they require costly prescriptions. That is to say, we are not so concerned about the method of dispensing as about the financial effect on the poor. We hope that the Government are correct in forecasting a general lowering of prices; but we believe it would have been preferable to keep the GOS cover in position for the elderly—at least until we know how liberalisation is working. I wonder whether the noble Lord would care to comment on that point?
I know that these provisions are not to be put into effect until 1st April and are not the subject of this order—but this is perhaps the last opportunity we shall have to raise this matter in advance of the next regulations. So I want to ask the noble Lord: will the Government think again about this aspect? I repeat, we are not attacking the principle of this order but asking that the umbrella covering a certain section of the population should not suddenly be rolled up.
There is the related point concerning complex prescriptions. We understand that the position of the General Ophthalmic Service will be that people now subsidised by £15 or more—that is to say, those who do need complex glasses—will still be able to obtain them through the General Ophthalmic Service but at full economic cost. This means that some people who are not at all well off will lose subsidies which, on the Government's own figures, range up to £40. We feel that this type of prescription should have been
514
protected from the bracing winds of the market. After all, some people of very limited means may need two or three changes of spectacles within a year or 18 months—for example, after a cataract operation. Will the Government think again about that aspect? Finally, there is the question of the hospital eye service, which is very important to those with the poorest sight. Mr. Kenneth Clarke, the Minister of Health, has said that the same financial arrangements will apply in the hospital eye service as in the General Ophthalmic Service. He wrote to the Director-General of the Royal National Institute for the Blind on 29th June 1984:
"in the interests of consistency and equity we shall be ensuring that HES patients with a similar optical need to former GOS patients are treated financially in a similar manner.".
I think the noble Lord, Lord Ennals, referred to this aspect. Therefore, it would appear that the Government's intention is to stop hospital eye service patients getting subsidies which are not available to general ophthalmic service customers.
I wonder whether the noble Lord can clear up the position here. Will the NHS-based provision be as limited as in the GOS, or will there be different provisions? Is there to be a maximum charge for the most specialised items not supplied by the GOS? Will he clarify the Government's plans and say how far they have progressed in working them out? I make no apology for raising these matters because I do not see how we can raise them again before the subsequent set of orders comes before your Lordships' House.
To sum up, we are not supporting the annulment of the order but we are seriously concerned about the effect of the regulations that will follow. I want to put this on record now because if we wait until those regulations are laid it will be too late to have any effect on them.
8.51 p.m.
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, we have had another stimulating debate on this issue, albeit, perhaps, rather shorter than the standard we set ourselves during the long hot summer. Those days, when we last debated the issue of whether or not to allow unregistered retailers into the optical market to sell spectacles, seem only yesterday, but your Lordships will recall the lengthy debates on the Health and Social Security Bill. At that time I informed the House that under the enacted legislation we would prepare an order after having consulted with consumer, optical, medical, commercial and other interests. The Sale of Optical Appliances Order of Council 1984, which is before your Lordships today, is the result of the balance we struck following all the views we received during that consultation process.
A number of your Lordships have raised this question of consultation. As promised in those debates on the Bill, we consulted widely on the content of the order. A large number of views were expressed. We considered those views carefully and reached our judgment on the necessary balance to be struck between the various arguments that were put to us. Because of the very clear expression of views already received in both the consultation exercise and the normal course of business since announcing our

515
proposals last year, it was not felt necessary to consult further with the various groups which had expressed an interest.
I can perhaps develop this a little further this evening without pursuing in detail the discussions over the GOG's publicity rules. I suggest that the criticism levelled at the Government over the time taken to convey their views to the GOC on its latest revised rules serves to deflect attention away from what is the real issue. The OFT report was published in December 1982. The Director-General made perfectly clear his views that the publicity restrictions imposed by the GOC on opticians resulted in prices being significantly higher and efficiency significantly lower than they would otherwise be. I suggest that that report was warning number one to the profession. Warning number two came with our announcement almost a year later of our policy initiative on this issue. Warning number three was the presentation to Parliament of the Health and Social Security Bill last November. Despite these warnings the COG has not felt able to meet the Government's desire to allow the use of an acceptable degree of advertising by the profession.
All along the way the Government have been seeking to persuade rather than to compel. For that reason there was need to study the GOC's revised publicity rules, carefully seeking also the opinions of other Government departments, and to take legal advice before replying to the GOC. This all took time, I know, but we had to get it right in the end. May I assure your Lordships that there was no Machiavellian or other plot conspired in by Ministers or anyone else to synchronise the arrival of the Privy Council's letter at the GOC with the laying of the order which we are debating tonight—absolutely not.
On the question of delays in acknowledgement, which was raised by a number of noble Lords, I think the noble Lord, Lord Ennals, will be aware that the volume of correspondence in the department is huge. If there was delay in acknowledging a letter, I can only apologise and explain that during and after the passage of the Bill we were assailed by a vast amount of additional correspondence which put some strain on our resources. I am sure that the noble Lord will accept that in a department where Ministers alone are signing about 30,000 letters a year, with a further 80,000 signed by officials, there is a considerable burden. It was certainly the intention to acknowledge each reply to the consultation letter, but I accept that at least one acknowledgement was overlooked. If the criticism is that the particular organisation did not receive a detailed commentary on its response, I must say that there has to be an end to the consultation process, finally. Our response in this case was to prepare the necessary order that we are now debating.
Perhaps I should now give an outline of what the order aims to achieve, although much of the ground has been covered earlier. It is based on the firm and expert opinion of both the British Medical Association and the Faculty of Ophthalmologists—and it cannot be stressed often enough—that incorrectly dispensed glasses cannot damage adult eyes. It is also a fact that most people will know when their glasses are not right in some way, and they can take them back. Furthermore, the Faculty of Ophthalmologists has advised us
516
that it has been unable to find any evidence of inaccurate dispensing of spectacles causing actual damage to health or sight of the adult. This assurance allows us to open up the present monopoly with total confidence.
Notwithstanding this, our objective, as we have always made clear, is to provide for the sale of safe and serviceable glasses. The order achieves this by regulating what may be sold rather than by controlling who may sell spectacles. We have not permitted the unregistered to sell contact lenses, low vision aids or spectacles to children under 16 years old. We have also excluded the registered visually handicapped. The order does not permit dangerous materials to be used in the manufacture of frames or lenses. All spectacles must conform to a written prescription completed by a registered ophthalmic optician or doctor, and it must not be more than two years old when it is presented by a customer. British standards will govern conformity to the prescription and also the glazing of lenses. For spectacles other than prescribed simple reading glasses, we have chosen to add conditions governing lens centration, their checking by focimeter and, where prescribed, the checking and adjusting of the back vertex distances. All these conditions will form part of the contract between the buyer and the seller.
I come now to some of the points raised in the debate. The noble Lord, Lord Ennals, spoke about the lack of training that would exist under the terms of what is now proposed. We said from the outset that our objective is to control what is sold rather than who may sell it, as I said a moment ago. We have not de-registered opticians. They may still pursue professional excellence and, indeed, professional registration. We have given individuals the freedom to choose between the registered and the unregistered supplier. We do not believe that this will lower overall standards, as the noble Lord fears. Indeed, open competition is much more likely to stimulate and enhance quality and standards—a view expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Northfield. I doubt whether, as the noble Lord, Lord Ennals, suggested, many butchers, bakers, candlestick makers or what have you will enter the market. If they do, it will be with the objective of attracting and obtaining business. To do that, they will have to offer the services that satisfy the customer. It is that which is the final test of whether or not a patient is happy with the end product.
Other points raised by the noble Lord, Lord Ennals, were the keeping of records and operating from permanent places of business. Both those points are concerned with consumer protection rather than with any special optical considerations. Indeed, those specific issues were not put to us by the national consumer representatives, with whom we also consulted. We do not feel that consumers need such undue protection, as they are quite capable of reaching their own decisions on where they believe they will get value for money, as they do for all sorts of other things.
On the question of mail order spectacles, again all spectacles must accord with a written prescription. All spectacles will have to meet the British standards laid down in the order in respect of glazing and conformity with prescription. It is quite feasible for mail order agencies to develop customer services to provide for the simple reading glasses defined in the order.

517
However, for the more complicated prescriptions, the order lays down the requirements for the taking of measurements in respect of optical centration and back vertex distances, and I should have thought that mail order agents would have difficulty in meeting these particular obligations.
On the question of industrial safety spectacles, which the noble Lord raised, and which I think was raised also by another of your Lordships, the supply of industrial safety spectacles is already governed by the Protection of Eyes Regulations 1974; and under the Health and Safety at Work Act 1974 employers have a general responsibility towards their employees, and rightly so. We consulted the Health and Safety Executive on this point. Their view was that they saw no need to make industrial safety spectacles a special case. The responsibility is with the employer and this is where it should be.
The noble Lord, Lord Rugby, raised a question of design. I am sure that that is a valid point. Perhaps it is something that those who make these things will note. I certainly take the point he made.
On the more general point about the provision of ready made glasses, I perhaps should emphasise one or two things. The order does not seek to prevent the sale of ready made spectacles. They can be supplied provided—and it is an important point—they are in accordance with a written prescription produced by the customer which—and here I quote from Article 3(2)(a) of the order—

"(i) has been given by a registered medical practitioner or registered ophthalmic optician following a testing of sight by him, and

(ii) bears a date not more than two years before the day on which it is presented to the seller for the purposes of the sale".

This will allow a retailer to keep stocks of ready made spectacles but he can only supply them to a customer if they meet the requirements of a recent prescription given to him by that particular customer. If the retailer does not happen to have ready made frames containing lenses of the required strength, he will obviously not be able to supply them immediately. The customer can then either order them or go elsewhere. If a customer does not have a prescription he cannot be supplied. That is a fact.
The order does not permit unrestricted self-selection. A customer cannot walk in off the street, as some might think he will be able to, without a prescription, and rummage through a box of glasses and buy any that happen to take his particular fancy.
Lord Winstanley: My Lords, may I interrupt the noble Lord for a moment? The noble Lord explained to the House that these glasses can be supplied provided they are in accordance with the prescription. Could the noble Lord define a bit more clearly "in accordance with" there? To what extent is there a tolerance? Do they have to be precisely in accordance with or is there an element of tolerance? Can the noble Lord come to that point?
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, I shall certainly come to it. If the noble Lord will bear with me for a moment, I am in fact going to deal with tolerances and how that affects what he is concerned about in due course. To sum up the point that I was really making to do with
518
this particular matter of ready made spectacles, ready made spectacles are not illegal if they are supplied to meet a recent prescription. I shall develop the theme of tolerances in a moment.
The noble Lord, Lord Northfield, powerfully made the point about relaxation of requirements for reading glasses. As he and others will be aware, we consulted widely on the order. Consumer interests persuaded us that our requirements for a focimeter and that kind of thing might well discourage retailers from entering the market when all they were proposing to stock were simple reading glasses. The requirements regarding centration and back vertex distance are far from critical for such simple appliances, as the noble Lord so elegently put it. Indeed professional opinion is agreed that the latter is hardly relevant for glasses up to 5 dioptres in strength. Checking the glasses with a focimeter is not very relevant, either, to glasses of this nature, where the lenses have mostly been cut to shape and even glazed to the frame in the factory. In any case, patient satisfaction with them is the main criterion. It goes back to the point that I made earlier. Having said that, it will still be a legal requirement for them to accord with a prescription.
The noble Lord, Lord Kilmarnock, raised the question of the blind and the partially sighted. It is a difficult area in which to legislate. It needs a consultant ophthalmologist to make decisions on whether or not someone is blind or partially sighted enough to be registered. I think it would have been a nonsense to put on to shopkeepers the responsibility of deciding whether or not someone was in this particular category. We have therefore made the test one which is reasonable for a shopkeeper to apply. However, if, for whatever reason, a registered person gives a misleading reply, it cannot be reasonable for the shopkeeper to be prosecuted for supplying glasses in such circumstances. I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord Kilmarnock, will accept that. Hence, the order provides that sales in these circumstances are not illegal.
Of course I appreciate that many visually handicapped people decide not to apply for registration, even though this brings them advantages. But they are responsible people and it is their right to choose as they will. If, despite advice to the contrary, visually handicapped people decide to patronise unregistered traders, they must be free to make that choice.
On the issue of the opticians' publicity rules, to which both the noble Lord, Lord Ennals, and my noble friend Lord Cullen referred, I think I covered this in sufficient detail earlier. However, if the noble Lord, Lord Cullen, particularly feels that I have not done so, then I shall be very happy to take the matter a little further. But I should like to say that we see no need to prevent unregistered retailers advertising their services. They will of course have to observe existing codes of practice governing advertising, but competition from these suppliers should have a significant impact on the price which the public pay for their glasses. I think it would be absurd to deny the public information about the availability of glasses from new suppliers. However, I shall read carefully what the noble Lord said and I shall if necessary follow it up in writing.

519
My noble friend also asked about the powers that exist to permit unregistered suppliers to enter into contract with family practitioner committees to deal with the supply of NHS spectacles. This was of course provided for in the 1984 Health and Social Security Act. The Government do not intend to operate the powers at the moment but of course circumstances may change in the future. All I can say is that we shall not forget that the power exists.
The noble Lord, Lord Ennals, was concerned about enforcement—lack of enforcement in his eyes—because this order does not have specific enforcement provisions in it. There are two aspects to the order. First, there are the provisions concerning the quality of an individual's finished glasses, that is, whether they accord with the prescription, etc. These are self-policing. They form part of the contract with the customer. If they are broken, the customer can demand replacement or his money back. Secondly, there are the public interest provisions concerned with the exclusion of glasses for children and those who are registered as blind and the exclusion of contact lenses. Since 1958, the Opticians Act has regulated who can test sight and who can supply optical appliances. No specific enforcement agency was provided by that Act. Yet no one has ever suggested that there is any general problem arising from unqualified people attempting the testing of sight or the fitting of contact lenses. Similarly, we see no need for such an enforcement agency in the future.
So far as sales of glasses for children are concerned, this would require the active collusion of parent and retailer. Are parents likely to take that sort of risk with their children's sight? I think certainly not. There is no financial incentive to do so because free glasses will still be available under the GOS arrangements. Furthermore, children's glasses which are supplied privately are a tiny segment of the market. I cannot believe that a retailer will risk a £1,000 fine for an insignificant improvement in turnover.
Most of the problems that have occurred with the Opticians Act concern illicit sales of glasses. These breaches of law, which I certainly do not condone, are the direct result of a law that is too restrictive and that has lost all credibility with the public at large. The noble Lord asked me a number of questions on this area, and I shall do my best to deal with them. We talk about prosecution of those who go outside the permitted exemptions. Contravention of Section 21 of the Opticians Act will still remain an offence. If a supplier steps outside the terms of orders made under the new provision he will remain liable to prosecution. On enforcement, again, anyone breaking conditions contained in orders made under Section 21 of the Opticians Act will be in breach of that section and subject to a fine of £1,000. It is up to anyone to lay information before magistrates where they believe that an offence has been committed.
My noble friend Lord Mottistone was concerned about consumer safeguards. Much has been made of the loss of consumer protection as a result of permitting unregistered traders to sell glasses. The unregistered trader will operate under conditions specified in orders made by the Privy Council and our
520
objective has been to ensure that safe and serviceable glasses are sold. Breach of conditions by an unregistered trader will be a criminal offence. It is open to magistrates' courts to compensate those who have suffered loss as a result of such offences. The normal protection of the Sale of Goods and Supply of Goods and Services Acts will also apply. The cost of most glasses will be within the limit for informal arbitration hearing by county courts.
I turn now to the question of tolerances raised by the noble Lord, Lord Northfield, and by the noble Lord, Lord Winstanley. The tolerances applied in ophthalmic lenses vary depending upon the power of the lens. It is important to remember that the tolerances apply to a pair of glazed spectacles and thus the tolerances that appear in British Standards are for each separate lens. So a tolerance of 0·06 of a dioptre for each lens provides for a possible tolerance of 0·12 for the completed pair of spectacles. These tolerances were decided by a British Standards committee which included representatives of the optical and medical professions and industry. The industry has been operating these tolerances without undue problems, I am told, since 1962. This is perhaps the base from which we should start. Maybe, one of the advantages of subordinate legislation is that it provides for speedy changes should these prove necessary. That, I hope, will satisfy my noble friend Lord Orr-Ewing, who I do not see in his place behind me. Clearly, any discussion of British Standards tolerances can become rather technical. But we can pursue that point more fully if necessary by correspondence if both noble Lords would like me to do so.
Lord Northfield: My Lords, would it not be a good idea to have consultations on the figure of a maximum tolerance of 0.12? My guess is that it should be something like 0.25, in other words, that it should probably be double what it is. Could there not be some discussions on whether that would be acceptable?
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, as I have said, these figures were reached by consultation that took place in the past. If the noble Lord wants us to go wider still, I am sure that those involved will note his views. Beyond that, I do not think that I can give him any undertaking this evening.
Before concluding, I should like to refer to a couple of points raised. First, the suggestion by the noble Lord, Lord Kilmarnock, that the old and poor would be forced to use unqualified suppliers and so risk harming their sight. It is wrong, I think, to assume that qualified opticians will not become much more competitive and reduce their prices. It is also wrong, I think, to assume that new unregistered suppliers will be unskilful in the way that the noble Lord thinks that they might be. Of course, as I said earlier, they will need to try harder to attract and retain custom, mistakes will not cause permanent damage, as I said right at the beginning, and the customer will usually become aware of them straight away.
In regard to expensive lenses, I accept that there are many fears about the future cost of complex lenses in the post-GOS private market. But I think we have already given an assurance of allowing access to GOS to those needing certain complex lenses, and the

521
arrangements which will be made for them in due course will of course come forward.
Lastly, on the question of the Hospital Eye Service, I can tell the noble Lord, Lord Kilmarnock, that there will be no change in the present arrangements for the supply of contact lenses or low-vision aids. However, many hospital eye prescriptions are for quite routine lenses and it would be quite wrong to prevent such patients seeking the best bargain for their glasses. There are some special cases where the patient might be unable to reach a judgment on what his vision should be. In these cases the clinician can be expected to advise the patient of the need for the prescription to be made up by a qualified optician.
We believe that the order strikes a sensible balance between protecting and enhancing the position of the consumer and the opening up of the optical market to competition. This will achieve our objective of reducing the price of private spectacles to the public at large. During the passage of the Bill through your Lordships' House, the noble Lord, Lord Ennals, as he said, opposed our wish to see competition injected into this segment of the market. He described how the purpose of his Prayer today was to repeat that opposition. He and other opponents—my noble friend Lord Mottistone and my noble friend Lord Cullen—claimed that what we are doing is helping to erode the quality of the existing service. Others criticise us for not having gone far enough. I can only deduce from this that what we have really discovered is the right path down which to proceed in complete confidence. Our order involves no health risk; indeed, it protects all necessary health aspects. It strengthens the hand of the consumer but, above all, it allows the consumer the right to make a choice between registered and unregistered dispensing. I believe that consumers richly deserve this freedom of choice and that Parliament has denied it to them for quite long enough. That is why I commend the order to your Lordships.
9.17 p.m.
Lord Ennals: My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Glenarthur, for answering so completely the questions that were put. When I say "completely" I do not mean satisfactorily; I mean completely. He would not expect me to be satisfied with a number of the answers that he gave. I am going to take only a couple of minutes in dealing with a few of the points.
First, I was not at all satisfied with what he had to say about consultation. I think it was generous of him to accept that because of pressures within the department—so many protests must have been coming into the department about so many other things—it must have been very difficult for him to get through his work. That would have led me to believe that it would have been better to delay the date of the order in order that it could then have come into line with the date in April when the qualified opticians are able to begin their own advertising. So I see no reason at all why the pressure of work upon the department—which I well understand, having myself been Secretary of State—should have led them to go into a rushed consultation which quite clearly did not
522
take into consideration some of the representations that were made by those within the profession. The attitude, "We warned the profession once, we warned the profession twice, and we warned the profession three times", is not an attitude that I believe the DHSS should take toward any of the professions that work within the National Health Service.
I am not satisfied with what the noble Lord had to say about enforcement and supervision, which really was that it is self-enforceable. Some people like my noble friend Lord Northfield are certainly able to seek enforcement, and so, too, are others in your Lordships' House. But there are some people who have not got the qualification, the guts, or the stamina, in a sense. They are not do-gooders in the way that my noble friend has been accused of; whether he recognises himself by that title I really do not quite know. Certainly when we bring in Lord Orr-Ewing, I do not think he would accept himself as being a do-gooder.
I think the Minister ought to have postponed the date so that advertising could have come in at the same time. If he argues that it is absurd to deny to the public the opportunities of knowing what facilities are open to them, then it must equally be absurd that registered opticians should be denied the right by law to make available to the public the facilities that they can offer. He has put the new private sector into a position which I think is advantageous to them and disadvantageous—if the Minster wishes me to give way, I will do so.
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, I do not want to prolong this matter but the fact is that the position in which the General Optical Council finds itself is perhaps due to the way in which it has chosen to handle this particular situation. I gather that it is to meet on 20th December to discuss the Privy Council's response, and I hope that it finds itself able to reach a speedy decision. But I do not think that I can go back on what I said.
Lord Ennals: But it is still the case, my Lords, that it will not be until April, as I understand it, that it will be free to advertise in a way which up to now has been denied it under the 1958 Act.
The final point I want to make (except for one concluding sentence) concerns records. I did not think that the Minister dealt adequately with the reason why there should not be proper records kept by those who are taking on a new responsibility. Admittedly, they are taking it on for profit. But the fact that they are doing it for profit is no reason why they should not keep proper records in order that patients should be able to refer back to them one year, two years or even six months afterwards in order to check on the work that was done. It is all part of the supervision and enforcement to which I referred.
I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Mottistone, that the subject needed an airing. It was helpful that we were able, across the Chamber, to air the problem once again. But I conclude by saying that I am sure the noble Lord realises that my worry is not just about this particular order. My worry—and I know that it is shared by many opticians working within the National Health Service—is that we are not very far off the time when the optical service (and, I would add, the dental

523
service, too, but we are not debating that now) will be phased out of the National Health Service. I see this as yet one further attempt—snip, snip, snip—to take services which have been provided by the National Health Service and hand them over to the private sector. That is the basic and fundamental reason why I feel so disturbed by the Government's attitude towards this matter. My Lords, I beg leave to withdraw my Motion.
Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
House adjourned at twenty-two minutes past nine o'clock.